In the United States, do you think the pros outweigh the cons regarding the existence and/or functionality of the Electoral College? Or vice versa?
Every delay has consequences.
Bold lettering is the TLDR portion if you don't want to read the whole thing.
For most of my politically-involved or literate life, among the many issues facing the United States today, I typically viewed the Electoral College as little more than a "non-issue" for the lack of a better word. More recently, however, and as I've become much more invested in constitutional theory alongside topics of policy, I've increasingly had my qualms with the Electoral College, some of which I'll explain below. But, to get to the question first:
Do you think that the Electoral College still "has a place" in the United States today? That is to say, do you think its existence is warranted?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't, not anymore. Here's my reasoning:
At the point of the Constitutional Convention there were, of course, a variety of reasons behind the Electoral College being founded, varying equally so in their moral or logical validity.
To begin with what does make sense, is that the Founding Fathers feared the tyranny of the majority, which, arguably, any student of history can attest to the validity of such a fear. While I don't think the Electoral College today fits this goal, I can see how it would function to that purpose in the young Republic. On the same hand, the Founding Fathers also feared the vulnerability to instability and mob rule that direct democracy had posed to those democracies of ancient Greece. Finally, and arguably most egregiously, the last major reason for the Electoral College was, of course, as an institution by which the Southern slave states could implement their 3/5s compromise in order to maintain their political leverage.
Moving on to my main criticisms against the Electoral College, I'll get the simple ones out of the way first:
The Electoral College is a relic of the 3/5s compromise and of slavery in America. I am of the opinion that this reason is a self-supporting argument, so I won't invest a ton of time into explaining it.
The Electoral College's winner-takes-all system no longer functions towards its purpose of preventing tyranny of the majority, instability, or mob rule. This isn't to the fault of the Founding Fathers. They probably didn't even recognize the drastic impact that populism would have in the United States (sometimes for better, most often for worse).
The winner-takes-all system dissuades minority voting. Minority in this case doesn't just mean racial, class-based, sex-based, or other demographic based voting, but rather political-affiliation based voting. For example, a Democrat living in Oklahoma has very little incentive to vote at all, given that every county in the state has voted Republican since the 2004 election. A Republican in a Democratic stronghold, or a Democrat in a Republican Stronghold, holds very little incentive to vote at all.
And my biggest reason:
If you take the time to look into it, you will find that the way the Electoral College handles its population-based proportionality is outrageously and borderline unconstitutionally fraudulent, for the lack of a better word.
Under Article II, Section 1, …
Every delay has consequences.
Bold lettering is the TLDR portion if you don't want to read the whole thing.
For most of my politically-involved or literate life, among the many issues facing the United States today, I typically viewed the Electoral College as little more than a "non-issue" for the lack of a better word. More recently, however, and as I've become much more invested in constitutional theory alongside topics of policy, I've increasingly had my qualms with the Electoral College, some of which I'll explain below. But, to get to the question first:
Do you think that the Electoral College still "has a place" in the United States today? That is to say, do you think its existence is warranted?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't, not anymore. Here's my reasoning:
At the point of the Constitutional Convention there were, of course, a variety of reasons behind the Electoral College being founded, varying equally so in their moral or logical validity.
To begin with what does make sense, is that the Founding Fathers feared the tyranny of the majority, which, arguably, any student of history can attest to the validity of such a fear. While I don't think the Electoral College today fits this goal, I can see how it would function to that purpose in the young Republic. On the same hand, the Founding Fathers also feared the vulnerability to instability and mob rule that direct democracy had posed to those democracies of ancient Greece. Finally, and arguably most egregiously, the last major reason for the Electoral College was, of course, as an institution by which the Southern slave states could implement their 3/5s compromise in order to maintain their political leverage.
Moving on to my main criticisms against the Electoral College, I'll get the simple ones out of the way first:
The Electoral College is a relic of the 3/5s compromise and of slavery in America. I am of the opinion that this reason is a self-supporting argument, so I won't invest a ton of time into explaining it.
The Electoral College's winner-takes-all system no longer functions towards its purpose of preventing tyranny of the majority, instability, or mob rule. This isn't to the fault of the Founding Fathers. They probably didn't even recognize the drastic impact that populism would have in the United States (sometimes for better, most often for worse).
The winner-takes-all system dissuades minority voting. Minority in this case doesn't just mean racial, class-based, sex-based, or other demographic based voting, but rather political-affiliation based voting. For example, a Democrat living in Oklahoma has very little incentive to vote at all, given that every county in the state has voted Republican since the 2004 election. A Republican in a Democratic stronghold, or a Democrat in a Republican Stronghold, holds very little incentive to vote at all.
And my biggest reason:
If you take the time to look into it, you will find that the way the Electoral College handles its population-based proportionality is outrageously and borderline unconstitutionally fraudulent, for the lack of a better word.
Under Article II, Section 1, …
In the United States, do you think the pros outweigh the cons regarding the existence and/or functionality of the Electoral College? Or vice versa?
Every delay has consequences.
Bold lettering is the TLDR portion if you don't want to read the whole thing.
For most of my politically-involved or literate life, among the many issues facing the United States today, I typically viewed the Electoral College as little more than a "non-issue" for the lack of a better word. More recently, however, and as I've become much more invested in constitutional theory alongside topics of policy, I've increasingly had my qualms with the Electoral College, some of which I'll explain below. But, to get to the question first:
Do you think that the Electoral College still "has a place" in the United States today? That is to say, do you think its existence is warranted?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't, not anymore. Here's my reasoning:
At the point of the Constitutional Convention there were, of course, a variety of reasons behind the Electoral College being founded, varying equally so in their moral or logical validity.
To begin with what does make sense, is that the Founding Fathers feared the tyranny of the majority, which, arguably, any student of history can attest to the validity of such a fear. While I don't think the Electoral College today fits this goal, I can see how it would function to that purpose in the young Republic. On the same hand, the Founding Fathers also feared the vulnerability to instability and mob rule that direct democracy had posed to those democracies of ancient Greece. Finally, and arguably most egregiously, the last major reason for the Electoral College was, of course, as an institution by which the Southern slave states could implement their 3/5s compromise in order to maintain their political leverage.
Moving on to my main criticisms against the Electoral College, I'll get the simple ones out of the way first:
The Electoral College is a relic of the 3/5s compromise and of slavery in America. I am of the opinion that this reason is a self-supporting argument, so I won't invest a ton of time into explaining it.
The Electoral College's winner-takes-all system no longer functions towards its purpose of preventing tyranny of the majority, instability, or mob rule. This isn't to the fault of the Founding Fathers. They probably didn't even recognize the drastic impact that populism would have in the United States (sometimes for better, most often for worse).
The winner-takes-all system dissuades minority voting. Minority in this case doesn't just mean racial, class-based, sex-based, or other demographic based voting, but rather political-affiliation based voting. For example, a Democrat living in Oklahoma has very little incentive to vote at all, given that every county in the state has voted Republican since the 2004 election. A Republican in a Democratic stronghold, or a Democrat in a Republican Stronghold, holds very little incentive to vote at all.
And my biggest reason:
If you take the time to look into it, you will find that the way the Electoral College handles its population-based proportionality is outrageously and borderline unconstitutionally fraudulent, for the lack of a better word.
Under Article II, Section 1, …
0 Comments
0 Shares
36 Views
0 Reviews
