KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

The National Popular Vote Initiative

MintJulie · 3052

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MintJulie

  • ~. Version Number 9.2.1 ~
  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 10,983
    • Woos/Boos: +1820/-23
    • Gender: Female
  • Madame Sheriff
on: September 12, 2018, 05:39:32 PM

I had just heard about this on the local radio news.   "Michigan needs to be relevant," I heard the lawmaker soundbite in the story.

The National Popular Vote initiative asks states to adopt a law that awards all of their electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes nationally. If enough states sign on to comprise a majority of the electoral votes — 270 — it would reconcile the popular vote with the Electoral College.

Currently, 11 states and Washington, D.C. — with a total of 172 electoral votes — have signed on. If Michigan adds its 16 votes, it would take the number to 188. Legislation is also pending in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, which would add another 53 electoral votes, bringing National Popular Vote near to reality.


The Detroit News story here

I'm torn on this.  Pooling votes doesn't seem right.  Fix the electoral college first, but we know this can't be done without it turning into a circus.   So if Michigan signs on, those 11 states puts it to 188.   188 of 272.   It's basically 11 states deciding for the rest of the country that only the popular vote matters.   While I tend to agree that the popular vote is correct, we're still under the law of the electoral college process, which this initiative circumvents. 


.
          You might not know this, but I have a thing for Tom Brady (and Bill Clinton)


psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #1 on: September 12, 2018, 06:57:21 PM
Thanks, Julie!  That's awesome, because Democracy doesn't work when people don't vote, and people don't generally vote in mid-terms.  This is ultimately how incumbents get re-elected for decades, and Congress can conspire to shut down the government, and block a President they don't like.

Like I always said, democracy isn't the olympics.  You can't just tune in every 4 years unless someone's caught cheating.  As long as more voters get out there and vote, then the theory of Democracy is better tested by sample size. 



IdleBoast

  • Guest
Reply #2 on: September 12, 2018, 07:18:50 PM
I'm an outside observer, but the electoral college system just seems wrong - 2016 showed it doesn't reflect the national position, and its roots are essentially racist in nature.

Modern technology allows the votes to be collected and collated nationally with ease; a national position, that can [potentially] be held without the backing of a party, should be voted for nationally and directly.




Offline Levorotatory

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 359
    • Woos/Boos: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #3 on: September 12, 2018, 07:50:53 PM
As another outsider, I'd also suggest that the US electoral college is an anachronism that ought to be done away with, having twice elected the candidate getting fewer votes in this century alone.  Tabulating votes across a nation that spans a continent would have been a daunting task in the 19th century, but it is trivial today.  The USA should really consider instituting a direct vote for the president, using a ranked ballot to prevent minor candidates from skewing the results by differentially pulling votes from the major party candidates.



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #4 on: September 13, 2018, 01:27:24 AM
 The United States does not have a popular election for President, as a Nation. Rather, the various States (and the District of Columbia) each hold a popular vote election for who the State (&DC) wish to elect as President of the United States. The States in effect elect that Candidate's "Electors". One Elector for each Member of Congress from the individual State, and one for each Senator from the individual State.

   These 538 Electors then vote, the individual electors selected according to which Candidate, and therefore which slate of electors won each of the 51 State popular vote contests. So the popular vote is taken in each State, Certified by the Governor of each State. The slate of Electors sent by those individual States takes the vote for the Winner overall.

   The United States of America is thus represented proportionally by these 51 popular vote contests, as the States are represented by the Congress, and after the Electors cast their votes, the U.S. Congress gets to 'accept' the resulting tally as the Winner, the elected President, who will take office on January 20 of the year following the Election.

   See the attached for why this method is desired, and dictated by our Founding Fathers, in lieu of a vote directly by the Congress, for this selection.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

   As to working around the designated method described in this link, each State gets to decide how to allocate it's own popular vote results. Most use a Winner Takes All method, and several use an allocation method. Each may choose how to allocate their individual Electoral votes, as well as each State gets to decide much about it's election process, by their individual State legislation process.

   We are one Nation, made of many different States, with Representative Government, and we do not have a National Popular Vote per se, for anything. The media use of vote tally by individual States presumes use of each individual State contest, as though they were cast as ONE, which they are not.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 01:30:46 AM by joan1984 »

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline IrishGirl

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 350
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-6
    • Gender: Female
Reply #5 on: September 13, 2018, 02:48:57 AM
So that means if Kentucky, Ohio, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, all vote for candidate X and Chicago, New York, LA, all vote for candidate Y, than the people in the lower populated states that are representing them in the electoral college are forced to vote AGAINST the will of the people in those states.


Just another surplus living the American dream


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1722/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #6 on: September 13, 2018, 04:27:52 AM
Thanks, Julie!  That's awesome, because Democracy doesn't work when people don't vote, and people don't generally vote in mid-terms.  This is ultimately how incumbents get re-elected for decades, and Congress can conspire to shut down the government, and block a President they don't like.

Like I always said, democracy isn't the olympics.  You can't just tune in every 4 years unless someone's caught cheating.  As long as more voters get out there and vote, then the theory of Democracy is better tested by sample size. 

Apathy among voters is a politician's godsend. Voters have to weed through lies and half-truths for months before elections. Very little of substance is given by people running for office. Any wonder why voter turnout is low?  Do away with the electoral college and just tabulate the votes.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #7 on: September 13, 2018, 07:25:44 AM
It is time for the elctoral college to end.  It was implemented, along with the 3/5ths compromise, to give slave states a larger voice in the election of the president.

Slavery is illegal now, and there is no longer a 3/5ths compromise.   It is long past time for the electoral college to end.



Offline IrishGirl

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 350
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-6
    • Gender: Female
Reply #8 on: September 13, 2018, 09:18:05 AM
It is time for the elctoral college to end.  It was implemented, along with the 3/5ths compromise, to give slave states a larger voice in the election of the president.

Slavery is illegal now, and there is no longer a 3/5ths compromise.   It is long past time for the electoral college to end.

That is a half-truth, and even saying that is a stretch.  Really it's a 1/8th truth at best.

the fact is that the US was devised to be governed by state AND by population, because each state had it's own sovereignty separate from the Federal Government to help reinforce the system of checks and balances.  States are allowed a certain amount of anonymity from the federal government and can even collectively over-rule the federal government.

This is why we have a congress that is both state based and population based, the Senate and the House respectively.

The Electoral College was devised to keep that duality in presidential elections, so the decision would be both state and populace based....

...and we see this best in the Hillary campaign strategy.  She targeted really ONLY the most populated states because they garnered the most electoral votes, and, theoretically would be enough to win the election while counting on a few of the small numbered states to fall in line.

Russia interference aside, she lost because all the little states still add up.

Keeping the duality is probably for the best and I will cite Gay Marriage as an example.

Gay people won the right to marry in a Supreme Court decision...but now we have a conservative Supreme Court.  If the decision were made today, they most likely wouldn't win.

However, we saw the domino effect with Gay Marriage.  One state after another was legalizing it.  Now, despite what activists will tell you, because of the duality of the government--specifically the states part and their ability to influence the federal government--Gay Marriage could have still lost the Supreme Court decision, and been legalized if the majority of the states legalized it.

And emphasis on MAJORITY for those of you that are going to argue that Mississippi would never legalize it.  they wouldn't have to, the Majority is not ALL the states, they wouldn't have to win Mississippi or Texas to compel the Federal Government to legalize Gay Marriage even with a Supreme Court loss.

It actually made taking the case to the Supreme Court dangerous, because they were already coming close to a guaranteed win by state majority and a SCOTUS loss would have complicated matters and delayed the victory when it came to a state majority.

Lois cited the 3/5th Compromise, and slavery...the Electoral College wasn't about Slavery, states like Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland--low land and low population states in 1787 were the primary backers of it and they were also--save Maryland--largely the primary abolitionist states.  And the reason is, frankly, they didn't want my home state to control the presidency after pretty much dragging them into the Revolution, and they certainly didn't want Virginia, a slave state to have control either.

However, slavery DID play a huge factor with the electoral college leading up to the Civil War.  The Electoral College is why we had both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise, we were getting to the point that, BECAUSE of the electoral college, abolitionist states could over rule slave state for POTUS.  AND we were getting to the point that the states could over-rule the Federal Government and end slavery by majority...just like what COULD have been done with Gay Marriage should they have not taken the case to SCOTUS or lost.

By getting rid of the Electoral College, you're making the states far more subservient to the Federal Government...and as we clearly see, people like Trump can become president, Paul Ryan can become the Speaker of the House.

Eliminating the Electoral College, doesn't guarantee that your side wins, but it does guarantee that states can't challenge the federal government as easily should your side lose.

And for those of you that demand, how was it put "verifiable and legitimate sources"  here is the rational for the Electoral College, by the people that devised it:

In Its Entirety:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/

The Parts Specifically dealing with the Electoral College:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-39.php
Quote
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-68.php
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php

And here are the Acts and Compromises listed:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html
Quote
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/missouri.html

It just helps to understand things if you actually take the time to read the primary sources...otherwise, like Lois, you are just quoting an interpretation and often that interpretation is intentionally one sided and only uses parts of the facts as a whole.

And, she wasn't wrong about it being LINKED to the 3/5ths Compromise...but it was really, only linked to is because that was part of the discussion as to HOW POTUS would be elected, 3/5ths had a lot more to deal with the populace part of the vote (and populace congressional representation) NOT the state based part of the POTUS vote.

Basically, 3/5ths was so slaves states could compete against Boston and Philly and not on a state power level.  The electoral college, however, is state power not populace power.

So, there is a big disconnect between what Lois said and why the Electoral College actually exists.  

Ultimately think of it like this, getting ride of the electoral college is like eliminating the Senate and only working with the House and POTUS.  And it shouldn't take a history major to point out the problem there...but I will anyway: Ryan and Trump.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 09:28:20 AM by IrishGirl »

Just another surplus living the American dream


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,203
    • Woos/Boos: +3194/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #9 on: September 13, 2018, 04:04:50 PM

Thanks, Julie!  That's awesome, because Democracy doesn't work when people don't vote, and people don't generally vote in mid-terms.  This is ultimately how incumbents get re-elected for decades, and Congress can conspire to shut down the government, and block a President they don't like.

Like I always said, democracy isn't the olympics.  You can't just tune in every 4 years unless someone's caught cheating.  As long as more voters get out there and vote, then the theory of Democracy is better tested by sample size. 


Great points.

And the tragic fact is that Americans do no "get out there and vote." We're having our primaries in NYC today, and most of the candidates are running for state and local offices. Four years ago, the voter turnout for this primary was barely 10%. And voter turnout for the presidential election in November 2016 was barely 50%. Nationwide, it wasn't much better.

Americans -- or American states -- can't complain about "not being relevant," or "not having their voices heard," unless they actually get off their butts, go to their local polling place, and cast their votes in the primaries and elections. And we don't vote -- in tragically high numbers.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline PHDaddyDom

  • Pervert
  • **
    • Posts: 99
    • Woos/Boos: +29/-0
Reply #10 on: September 13, 2018, 04:26:27 PM
Fantastic Post @IrishGirl and very well explained.

There is a reason that the word democracy is never mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights. The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The electoral college allows all states to be represented for their ideas and beliefs. Going to a popular vote system will end with a select few states who have large populations (New York, California, Chicago, etc) to decide the course of the country for everyone. That in turn leads to the country becoming an oligarchy and is exactly what the founding fathers structured things to prevent.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,203
    • Woos/Boos: +3194/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #11 on: September 13, 2018, 04:27:11 PM

I'm an outside observer, but the electoral college system just seems wrong - 2016 showed it doesn't reflect the national position, and its roots are essentially racist in nature.

Modern technology allows the votes to be collected and collated nationally with ease; a national position, that can [potentially] be held without the backing of a party, should be voted for nationally and directly.


Though I can't find it at the moment, there's already a thread here (somewhere) where the merits of the Electoral College vs. a Popular Vote system (or some sort of hybrid) are discussed at length. And I won't repeat that or reopen that debate here.

However, while one could argue that the roots of the Electoral College system are elitist in nature, I can't possibly see how the Electoral College system is "essentially racist in nature." And, it's worth noting, while the roots of the system might be labeled elitist, the modern-day reality, 200+ years later, is anything but.

It's also worth noting that for a change in the way we elect our president to be effected -- and the Electoral College is used solely for presidential elections -- it would require a Constitutional amendment, an amendment that would represent that largest and farthest-reaching Constitutional change in our nation's history. After the Bill of Rights -- which were not changes to the Constitution -- and tossing out the two Prohibition amendments, the U.S. Constitution has only been amended 15 times in 230 years.

Perhaps more to the point, it's not exactly productive to judge a 230-year-old system by the results of one, single election. And it's even less productive to judge that system by the nature, personality, or effectiveness of the candidate who won the 2016 presidential election. It's a fact -- a clear and unadulterated fact -- that the losing candidate in the 2016 presidential election earned upwards of 3 million more popular votes than the winning candidate. But it's also a fact that this if the fifth time in our history that the winning candidate did not win the popular vote. It's hardly an anomalous situation, and, had the situation been reversed, there would be zero outcry from the left about the unfairness of the Electoral College, and there would be zero campaigns to amend the Constitution and overhaul the way presidents are elected in the U.S.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,203
    • Woos/Boos: +3194/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #12 on: September 13, 2018, 04:30:22 PM

Fantastic Post @IrishGirl and very well explained.

There is a reason that the word democracy is never mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights. The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The electoral college allows all states to be represented for their ideas and beliefs. Going to a popular vote system will end with a select few states who have large populations (New York, California, Chicago, etc) to decide the course of the country for everyone. That in turn leads to the country becoming an oligarchy and is exactly what the founding fathers structured things to prevent.


Last time I checked, Chicago wasn't a state...







"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #13 on: September 13, 2018, 05:07:34 PM
Another reason the electoral college was implemented, is to protect us from demagogues like Trump, that the populace might be foolish enough to vote for.  It didn't work, so it is time for it to go.

Look, the Constitution is not perfect.  It provided for slavery. We changed that, and we can change other problems in it that are evident over time.

Under the electoral college system a vote in California counts for less than a vote in Wyoming, and attention is paid only to the swing states.  All states should matter, not just swing states.

There are many kinds of Republics.  Ancient Rome had a Republic wherein only certain wealthy landowning families were allowed to vote for representation in their senate. The USA is a Democratic Republic.  This means the people get to vote for their representatives. In this way we are both a Democracy and a Republic.



Offline IrishGirl

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 350
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-6
    • Gender: Female
Reply #14 on: September 13, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Another reason the electoral college was implemented, is to protect us from demagogues like Trump, that the populace might be foolish enough to vote for.  It didn't work, so it is time for it to go.


Quote
Last time I checked, Chicago wasn't a state...

Firstly, Chicago isn't a state, but it is a massive population center with about the population of three states out west.  Get rid of the electoral College, and it might a well be.

And then Lois, this is great.  I hear this all the time..."The electoral college caused my side to lose so it has to go"

Really that is a temper tantrum response, because it serves a purpose, and that purpose could as easily be to protect AGAINST Trump as it was originally intended.  And did in the past when a man that wanted to be king enlisted Tammany Hall to throw the popular vote.

All that argument is breaks down to "I am angry because I lost, so I want to kill the states ability to counter the federal government"

And it really doesn't take any consideration to everything else that the state power system allows for.  A populace president could just as well be as bad as Trump and you want to get rid of a defense against it, and the ability to over-turn Federal las (like the slavery you keep mentioning) because you're upset you lost.

It's reactionary, not logical.

Just another surplus living the American dream


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,203
    • Woos/Boos: +3194/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #15 on: September 13, 2018, 06:23:32 PM

I find it interesting that both Lois and IrishGirl seem to frame their analysis of the Electoral college in terms of "states rights." It's chiefly interesting because one clearly seems to reject the concept of "states rights," while the other seems to support it.

"States rights" had nothing to do with the creation of the Electoral College. The Electoral College was a compromise between two competing proposals: A president elected by a straight popular vote, and a president elected by a vote by the Members of Congress. And the popular vote still forms the core of the Electoral College system: the electors cast their votes based on the popular vote total in their given state. There have been "faithless electors" -- electors who cast a vote opposite of the winner of the popular total in their state. But they have been very few and far between, and in no instance did they have even the tiniest effect on the outcome.

It's true that fear of demagoguery played a role in the Framers' decision to create the Electoral College. They feared -- correctly, in my opinion -- that a populist tyrant might sway an uninformed populace into electing him or her president. Though I would not describe our current president as a "populist tyrant," it's painfully clear that today we have an aggressively uninformed electorate (and an electorate that, by and large, doesn't usually bother to vote).

Today there is a new form of demagoguery that the Framers never even dreamed of: The Demagoguery of money. With presidential candidates sitting on campaign war chests containing well over $1 billion dollars, candidates are able to sway votes in new and previously unheard of ways. Any analysis or prescription for change in the way we elect our presidents should take a temporary back seat to this incomparably more pressing and anti-democratic phenomenon.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline IrishGirl

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 350
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-6
    • Gender: Female
Reply #16 on: September 13, 2018, 08:28:07 PM

I find it interesting that both Lois and IrishGirl seem to frame their analysis of the Electoral college in terms of "states rights." It's chiefly interesting because one clearly seems to reject the concept of "states rights," while the other seems to support it.

"States rights" had nothing to do with the creation of the Electoral College. The Electoral College was a compromise between two competing proposals: A president elected by a straight popular vote, and a president elected by a vote by the Members of Congress. And the popular vote still forms the core of the Electoral College system: the electors cast their votes based on the popular vote total in their given state. There have been "faithless electors" -- electors who cast a vote opposite of the winner of the popular total in their state. But they have been very few and far between, and in no instance did they have even the tiniest effect on the outcome.

It's true that fear of demagoguery played a role in the Framers' decision to create the Electoral College. They feared -- correctly, in my opinion -- that a populist tyrant might sway an uninformed populace into electing him or her president. Though I would not describe our current president as a "populist tyrant," it's painfully clear that today we have an aggressively uninformed electorate (and an electorate that, by and large, doesn't usually bother to vote).

Today there is a new form of demagoguery that the Framers never even dreamed of: The Demagoguery of money. With presidential candidates sitting on campaign war chests containing well over $1 billion dollars, candidates are able to sway votes in new and previously unheard of ways. Any analysis or prescription for change in the way we elect our presidents should take a temporary back seat to this incomparably more pressing and anti-democratic phenomenon.







If ypu bothered to read what I saud, its about checks and balances

Just another surplus living the American dream


IdleBoast

  • Guest
Reply #17 on: September 13, 2018, 09:13:38 PM
I can't possibly see how the Electoral College system is "essentially racist in nature."

The varying states' "value" was originally set by a combination of sizes of the white population and the black slave population, but the blacks were only valued at 3/5 of a white person. Lowering the legal worth of a person based purely on the colour of their skin is about as racist as it gets.

Quote
Perhaps more to the point, it's not exactly productive to judge a 230-year-old system by the results of one, single election.

I'm not - the last election is what brought the system to my attention, but I understand the college and popular results have been contradictory on more than one occasion. I am a firm believer in the democratic process, and do not approve of our own system, where the national premier is selected through being the head of the largest party in the lower house of Parliament, even if there has not been an actual election - Theresa May became the Prime Minister because her predecessor quit in the aftermath of Brexit, and nobody else stood against her in the campaign to be party leader.

A few thousand people voted her into Parliament, nobody elected her to be PM, and she remained PM after last election even though nearly 60% of those who voted did so for somebody else.





Offline IrishGirl

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 350
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-6
    • Gender: Female
Reply #18 on: September 13, 2018, 11:12:37 PM
I can't possibly see how the Electoral College system is "essentially racist in nature."

The varying states' "value" was originally set by a combination of sizes of the white population and the black slave population, but the blacks were only valued at 3/5 of a white person. Lowering the legal worth of a person based purely on the colour of their skin is about as racist as it gets.

Quote
Perhaps more to the point, it's not exactly productive to judge a 230-year-old system by the results of one, single election.

I'm not - the last election is what brought the system to my attention, but I understand the college and popular results have been contradictory on more than one occasion. I am a firm believer in the democratic process, and do not approve of our own system, where the national premier is selected through being the head of the largest party in the lower house of Parliament, even if there has not been an actual election - Theresa May became the Prime Minister because her predecessor quit in the aftermath of Brexit, and nobody else stood against her in the campaign to be party leader.

A few thousand people voted her into Parliament, nobody elected her to be PM, and she remained PM after last election even though nearly 60% of those who voted did so for somebody else.




Again not true, see the above post, read the links where the people that created it argue for it.  You're just linking the fact that they were drafted in 1787 and used to elect POTUS together in order to link the electoral college with slavery and the slave system.

They are not and never have been one in the same.  They were added for different reasons.

And, go back up to my post and you see the people that drafted it explaining the reasons.

Just another surplus living the American dream


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #19 on: September 14, 2018, 01:28:25 AM
I was certainly never taught this, but it deserves a fair look as it sure makes sense to me.  I also like the idea that voting should be mandatory with a "none of the above" option.  Trump actually came in third place, behind Hillary and those that did not bother to vote with regards to 2016 election.  Then if the "none of the above" option wins, a new election must occur with new candidates.

Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars
By — Kamala Kelkar, Politics Nov 6, 2016 3:57 PM EDT

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

During that same speech on Thursday, July 19, Madison instead proposed a prototype for the same Electoral College system the country uses today. Each state has a number of electoral votes roughly proportioned to population and the candidate who wins the majority of votes wins the election.

Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Such anomalies and other criticisms have pushed 10 Democratic states to enroll in a popular vote system. And while there are many grievances about the Electoral College, one that’s rarely addressed is one dug up by an academic of the Constitution: that it was created to protect slavery, planting the roots of a system that’s still oppressive today.

“It’s embarrassing,” said Paul Finkelman, visiting law professor at University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I think if most Americans knew what the origins of the Electoral College is, they would be disgusted.”

Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”


Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win.

“None of this is about slaves voting,” said Finkelman, who wrote a paper on the origins of the Electoral College for a symposium after Gore lost. “The debates are in part about political power and also the fundamental immorality of counting slaves for the purpose of giving political power to the master class.”

He said the Electoral College’s three-fifths clause enabled Thomas Jefferson, who owned more than a hundred slaves, to beat out in 1800 John Adams, who was opposed to slavery, since the South had a stronghold.

While slavery was abolished, and the Civil War led to citizenship and voting rights for black people, the Electoral College remained intact. Another law professor, who has also written that the Constitution is pro-slavery, argues that it gave states the autonomy to introduce discriminatory voting laws, despite the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was built to prevent it.

In 2013, the Supreme Court freed nine states, mostly in the South, from the stipulation in the Voting Rights Act that said they could only change voter laws with the approval of the federal government.

“A more conservative Supreme Court has been unwinding what the [other] court did,” said Juan Perea, a law Professor of Loyola University Chicago. “State by state, that lack of supervision and lack of uniformity operates to preserve a lot of inequality.”

In July, a federal appeals court struck down a voter ID law in Texas, ruling that it discriminated against black and Latino voters by making it harder for them to access ballots. Two weeks later, another federal appeals court ruled that North Carolina, a key swing state, had imposed voting provisions that “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

And for this presidential election, 15 states will have new voting restrictions, such as ones that require government-issued photo identification at the polls or reduce the number of hours the polls are open.

“The ability of states to make voting more difficult is directly tied to the legacy of slavery,” Perea said. “And that ability to make voting more difficult is usually used to disenfranchise people of color.”

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has gained traction, but for reasons more related to the anomaly of the Gore-Bush election. Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz championed legislation in New York that brought the state into the compact and was asked by the NewsHour Weekend why the movement is important.

“We are the greatest democracy on the planet, and it seems to me that in the greatest democracy, the person who gets the most votes should win the election,” said Dinowitz. “We’re one country, North, South, East and West. One country. The votes of every single person in the country should be equal. And right now, the votes are not equal. Some states your vote is more important than in other states.”

New York overwhelmingly agreed on his bill in 2014, joining nine other states and Washington, D.C. Together, they have 165 electoral votes. If they gain a total of 270 — the majority needed to elect a president — the nation will move to a popular vote.

Not all academics agree that slavery was the driving force behind the Electoral College, though most agree there’s a connection. And both Perea and Finkelman say they know it is not the most prominent argument for the push toward a popular vote.

“But it is a vestige that has never been addressed,” Perea said.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution