Maine governor praises the Electoral College for keeping white people in power

[HomerJS]

Here is a list of justifications for the EC.

1. Compromise Between Large and Small States​

• The Electoral College was part of a broader compromise to balance power between large and small states. Larger states wanted representation based on population, while smaller states feared being overshadowed. The system allowed states to have a voice in presidential elections proportional to their population, but also gave smaller states more influence than they would have in a purely popular vote system.

2. Fear of Direct Democracy​

• The framers were concerned about the potential dangers of direct democracy. They feared that the general populace might not have enough information about candidates or could be swayed by demagogues. The Electoral College was seen as a buffer, ensuring that informed and educated electors, chosen by the states, would have the final say in selecting the president.

3. Preserving the Federal System​

• The Electoral College was designed to preserve the federal structure of the government. The U.S. was conceived as a union of states with their own rights and powers, and the Electoral College was a way to maintain the states' role in the federal system, reinforcing the idea that the president represented a federation of states rather than just a mass of individuals.

4. Concerns About Regional Candidates​

• There was concern that in a popular vote system, candidates might only focus on populous regions or states, ignoring less populated areas. The Electoral College encouraged candidates to campaign across the country and seek broader support, thus promoting national unity.

5. Practical Challenges of 18th Century America​

• In the late 18th century, communication and transportation were slow and unreliable. The Electoral College system accounted for the practical difficulties of holding a nationwide popular vote and transmitting results. Electors were chosen to represent the voters of each state and gather in their respective state capitals to cast their votes, which was more feasible given the time's technological limitations.

6. Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise​

• While not explicitly stated as a reason, the Electoral College indirectly benefited slaveholding states. The Three-Fifths Compromise allowed states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives and, by extension, the Electoral College. This gave slaveholding states more power in presidential elections than they would have had under a simple popular vote system.

1. Currently Wyoming with a population of 1/2 million has the same number of Senators as California which has 39 million. We need population adjusted number of senators. CA should have 4.

2. Demagogue getting elected. Well that doesn't apply anymore.

3. You can still have that with an adjusted number of Senators

4. Right now as Jamie Raskin articulated only the swing states get attention during elections.

5. No longer applicable

6. Ahh, that original sin nobody wants to talk about. Another reason to get rid of the EC or modify it. Like the former Governer of Maine said, gotta keep those white people inn power.

 

[fskimospy]

It ensures the PEOPLE don't have a fair say in the vote. That the few have voices that far exceed the many. It's an archaic and broken system.

Yes, that was literally the point. Slave states had a problem:

1) they had a lot of slaves that they didn’t want to be able to vote because presumably they would vote to no longer be enslaved.

2) without the voting power from these slaves they would not be able to control Congress or the presidency, which would probably also lead to the end of slavery.

3) therefore they were unwilling to join any system where things were decided by who got the most votes.

4) Enter the 3/5ths compromise and the electoral college where slave states got extra bonus representation.

This isn’t complicated, it’s just uncomfortable for people to admit.

 

[WelshBloke]

The U.S. is composed of fifty states, a constitutional republic. The EC was put in place so that every state has a voice in electing the president. Each state can decide how they distribute their EC votes. The people don't elect the president, the states do. Our democracy happens at the state level by selecting congressional representatives.
The EC simply guarantees that every state has a voice in the election of the president.

And yes, these reasons are still valid today.

It kinda weirds me out that Conservatives in the US that say that they are for small government and individual rights think that the views of local government apparatuses are more important than the views of the people.

The People: "We the people of the....."
The .gov: "Just going to stop you there..."

 

[Greenman]

It kinda weirds me out that Conservatives in the US that say that they are for small government and individual rights think that the views of local government apparatuses are more important than the views of the people.

The People: "We the people of the....."
The .gov: "Just going to stop you there..."

The people elect local government, isn't that democracy?

 

[Paratus]

It kinda weirds me out that Conservatives in the US that say that they are for small government and individual rights think that the views of local government apparatuses are more important than the views of the people.

The People: "We the people of the....."
The .gov: "Just going to stop you there..."

They don’t. The only guiding principle is holding power for their party. If providing extra power to local government allows more control for their party they are for it and will justify it with a fig leaf of “small government”.

If extra power to the federal government helps maintain control for their party then they’ll push for that under “law and order”.

There’s no actual hypocrisy as they hold no principles outside of power for the their party and themselves.

The only problem they run into (outside of liberal push back) is when it’s two conservative individuals, interests, whatever competing for power. Then it’s a hierarchy of whose the most white, male, Christian, heterosexual, and rich. It’s why you always hear about conservative minorities, women, etc complaining when they suddenly find themselves on the short end of the stick.

 

[Stokely]

Personally I don't think states being all that independent any more makes much sense. Everything is interconnected in ways that were not back in colonial days. Hell I work and communicate with people in different states (or even different countries) every day.

If red states want to split off and form their own Christo-fascist nirvana then maybe it's time to let them. Cue the invasion into the blue section in 3...2...1

 

[ch33zw1z]

At this point, seems like greenie just agreeing with the ex govnah, admitting it is tough /shrug

 

[WelshBloke]

The people elect local government, isn't that democracy?

So why don't the people elect the president if thats how we are defining democracy?

 

[fskimospy]

Personally I don't think states being all that independent any more makes much sense. Everything is interconnected in ways that were not back in colonial days. Hell I work and communicate with people in different states (or even different countries) every day.

If red states want to split off and form their own Christo-fascist nirvana then maybe it's time to let them. Cue the invasion into the blue section in 3...2...1

The US hasn't actually worked as a collection of sovereign states since the Civil War. Distilled down to the most fundamental question the Civil War was about if states, being sovereign entities, could voluntarily leave the union if they wanted to. Well, we know how that question was answered, haha.

Also, Americans don't think about themselves in that way and haven't for a long time. People identify as Americans, not as Californians or Kansans. (some weirdos in Texas may be the exception here)

 

[eelw]

It ensures the PEOPLE don't have a fair say in the vote. That the few have voices that far exceed the many. It's an archaic and broken system.

Right if they want to keep the archaic system, then they can keep their muskets. Nah my metal penis deserves an upgrade without a change to the laws

 

[WelshBloke]

The US hasn't actually worked as a collection of sovereign states since the Civil War. Distilled down to the most fundamental question the Civil War was about if states, being sovereign entities, could voluntarily leave the union if they wanted to. Well, we know how that question was answered, haha.

Also, Americans don't think about themselves in that way and haven't for a long time. People identify as Americans, not as Californians or Kansans. (some weirdos in Texas may be the exception here)

This is an area where I end up agreeing with the crazy wing of US politics. Personally I think that states should have the right to secede if a decisive majority decide to. I also believe that Scotland should be able to leave the Union (although I think that it's a terrible idea).

 

[K1052]

This is an area where I end up agreeing with the crazy wing of US politics. Personally I think that states should have the right to secede if a decisive majority decide to. I also believe that Scotland should be able to leave the Union (although I think that it's a terrible idea).

The only way I would consider this is if said state was then forever ineligible to rejoin the US as anything other than a federal territory. No revolving door bullshit once they decide it was a bad idea. Only a non-voting representative, no senators, no EC votes.

 

[brycejones]

The people elect local government, isn't that democracy?

So you support small d democracy, until you don't. Nice.

 

[IronWing]

This is an area where I end up agreeing with the crazy wing of US politics. Personally I think that states should have the right to secede if a decisive majority decide to. I also believe that Scotland should be able to leave the Union (although I think that it's a terrible idea).

One difference is that every state voluntarily joined the union. Scotland was conquered and the union had no political legitimacy until the stay referendum was held.

 

[WelshBloke]

The only way I would consider this is if said state was then forever ineligible to rejoin the US as anything other than a federal territory. No revolving door bullshit once they decide it was a bad idea. Only a non-voting representative, no senators, no EC votes.

Why? Let the state bear the costs and have a base "your economy needs to meet these values and your local laws need to be compatible with the US laws" clause.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The people elect local government, isn't that democracy?

You're so close.....

 

[WelshBloke]

One difference is that every state voluntarily joined the union. Scotland was conquered and the union had no political legitimacy until the stay referendum was held.

King James VI was a king of Scotland before he became king of the Union.
That said I'm not sure why that makes a difference, if you voluntarily join something you should be able to leave something.

 

[K1052]

Why? Let the state bear the costs and have a base "your economy needs to meet these values and your local laws need to be compatible with the US laws" clause.

Major decisions should have actual consequences. This would be like renouncing your citizenship and then going "oops maybe not a good idea". I would not want to encourage a revolving door where states leave then come back to the union based on the whims of their electorate because it is very disruptive to the rest of the country. I also see no reason there should not be a permanent political price for abandoning the union as would be in our power to decide.

 

[Greenman]

So why don't the people elect the president if thats how we are defining democracy?

Because the U.S is a Constitutional Republic, a democratic form of government, not a pure democracy. It's a conglomeration of fifty states that agreed to the constitution and bill of rights. The EC is in place to ensure that the less populace states have a say in the presidential election. Every state has rights and can enact laws that fit their circumstances, as long as those laws fit within the constitution.

 

[IronWing]

King James VI was a king of Scotland before he became king of the Union.
That said I'm not sure why that makes a difference, if you voluntarily join something you should be able to leave something.

Kings have no political legitimacy.

 

[K1052]

The EC is in place to ensure that the less populace states have a say in the presidential election

Low population states like *checks notes* Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. EC rewards CLOSE states not small states. I'm not sure how many times you need to be told this.

 

[IronWing]

Because the U.S is a Constitutional Republic, a democratic form of government, not a pure democracy. It's a conglomeration of fifty states that agreed to the constitution and bill of rights. The EC is in place to ensure that the less populace states have a say in the presidential election. Every state has rights and can enact laws that fit their circumstances, as long as those laws fit within the constitution.

The EC is totally unnecessary to the function of a constitutional republic, an anachronism of the slaver era that should have been jettisoned when the slaver rebellion was put down.

 

[fskimospy]

This is an area where I end up agreeing with the crazy wing of US politics. Personally I think that states should have the right to secede if a decisive majority decide to. I also believe that Scotland should be able to leave the Union (although I think that it's a terrible idea).

I agree! While the Confederacy was one of the most evil political entities ever to exist I don't see anything that indicated once states got in they could never get out and I think they had a valid point in that respect.

The thing is the North had something that mattered more, which was a stronger military, and so the legal particulars aside that question was decided conclusively.

 

[WelshBloke]

Major decisions should have actual consequences. This would be like renouncing your citizenship and then going "oops maybe not a good idea". I would not want to encourage a revolving door where states leave then come back to the union based on the whims of their electorate because it is very disruptive to the rest of the country. I also see no reason there should not be a permanent political price for abandoning the union as would be in our power to decide.

Honestly let one state leave and totally fuck their economy and no one else will do it for a considerable amount of time. Don't let anyone do it and that resentment will simmer.

*points at the UK and Brexit*

 

[fskimospy]

The EC is totally unnecessary to the function of a constitutional republic, an anachronism of the slaver era that should have been jettisoned when the slaver rebellion was put down.

The only thing 'republic' means as compared to a direct democracy is that the will of the people is carried out through representatives as opposed to the people voting directly on everything. The method of selection for those representatives is entirely irrelevant.

@Greenman has been told all this many times, he just ignores it because he has no good answer.