[xahrepap]

It is anti-democratic by design. Founding fathers didn't want a democratic election for presidents.

I think a good example of what the electoral college is: you have a sports tournament. The winner isn't the person who gets the most points in all the games. It's the person who wins the most games.

[throwaway729]

The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves.

Also, the founding fathers weren't all supporters of the electoral college. Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely become either irrelevant or reprehensible.

> It's the person who wins the most games.

That's the senate, and is not at all an accurate analogy for the way the electoral college works.

[theli0nheart]

> The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves.

This begs for a source. Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words?

Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that at the time the U.S. was founded, the individual states were essentially their own countries with individual governments and leadership. The only way they could make the deal work with all of them was to ensure that no one state could "overrule" the others. If smaller states could be bullied by larger states, the term "united states" loses a quite a bit of its meaning.

[throwaway729]

> the individual states were essentially their own countries with individual governments and leadership

The debate over the scope of the federal government dates back to before the end of the revolutionary war, and was a central topic of debate in the drafting and ratification process for the Constitution.

Remember that our first attempt at forming a country erred toward a weaker federal government, and was more-or-less an abject failure.

> Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words?

Federalist 68, in which almost every argument makes literally no sense when compared to direct democracy.

That paper is mostly arguing for the electoral college over e.g. the "Governors" or "congressional" plans, leaving the infeasibility of direct election as a foregone conclusion.

A lot of founding fathers would've preferred a direct vote. See for example Anti Federalist 72. Using google you can also find quotes from Madison, for example, arguing that a direct vote would obviously be best.

Which begs the question: why not just do the obvious thing?

> The only way they could make the deal work with all of them was to ensure that no one state could "overrule" the others

Why don't we come out and be explicit about it -- the only way to make it work was the make sure that slave states were comfortable that they'd be able to retain political power while continuing to subjugate a huge portion of their population.

> If smaller states could be bullied by larger states, the term "united states" loses a quite a bit of its meaning.

Larger by what measure?

The slave states that were opposed to direct election and are today characterized as "rural" weren't actually significantly less populous than the northern states. Virginia -- a slave state -- was the most populous.

It's just that a huge number of their men were black, and so didn't count in a direct election.

So, the whole "rural / less populous states need a voice in presidential elections" thing is complete and utter horse shit. The actual issue was that "very populous states that choose to treat a big portion of the population as sub-humans need a vote controlled by whites but with power proportional to their entire population".

[13years]

Those view points aren't without debate.

https://fee.org/articles/the-accidental-genius-of-the-electo...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/...

[throwaway729]

Respectfully, the first article does not refute a single statement in the post you're replying to, which was about the historical reason for the electoral college. It merely justifies the electoral college from first principles in a modern context. It even says as much in its title.

The second article also fails to refute anything I've said. A direct vote was ruled out because of slavery -- the article says nothing about that. Once a direct vote was was ruled out, Federalist 68 basically explains why you'd want a college over the competing alternatives.

But the key move is ruling out direct democracy, not preferring one among the N bad alternatives. And the article never explains why a direct vote would've been ruled out. It's painfully clear what the reason for doing so was.

[13years]

>A lot of founding fathers would've preferred a direct vote. See for example Anti Federalist 72. Using google you can also find quotes from Madison, for example, arguing that a direct vote would obviously be best.

Although true, this is true as a point in time statement. In the end, they were convinced of the alternative argument.

[MereInterest]

>The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. - Federalist Papers, # 68, Alexander Hamilton

The electoral college was there to prevent demagogues. That way, if one person managed to convince the populace with empty rhetoric, there would still be a reasonable body to meet, to discuss, and to choose somebody else.

[awinder]

Exactly, and the number of states with bound electors sure seem to be in conflict with the originalism of wanting to retain the electoral college argument...

[mch82]

Sources in my prior comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13039415

[cobralibre]

> In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves.

Worded another way: The states backing the college were some of the least populous UNLESS you counted slaves, who did not themselves enjoy rights of citizenship but were included in population counts to boost the political power of slaveholders.

[Frondo]

You know what, though? This isn't their world any more, it's ours.

One of the mistakes they made that we're all still suffering from was in how difficult it is in practice to amend the US constitution. Even the late great Antonin Scalia felt this way--in some interview he gave somewhere, he said that, if given a magic wand and the ability to change the constitution, he'd simply make it easier to amend.

Happily, there are people working on the electoral college problem, e.g. http://nationalpopularvote.com.

(I am, by the way, one of those coastal liberals who's pretty frustrated at how much less my vote matters than the vote of some dude in Wyoming.)

[maratd]

> One of the mistakes they made that we're all still suffering from was in how difficult it is in practice to amend the US constitution.

Completely disagree. It keeps us from screwing it up. Don't mess with something that isn't broken. And no, it isn't broken.

There's a reason the US government is one of the oldest in the world. They got quite a few things right from the start.

[Frondo]

For a lot of folks, citizens, mind you, the status quo is screwed up, is broken. That those citizens live out their lives with effectively no way to seek redress, due to a design decision made centuries ago, seems unjust to me.

After all, it's a legal document, not a religious text.

There's also dodgy and ambiguous language that keeps causing arguments and problems, in part because it wasn't written super clearly to begin with, and in part because centuries have passed since the people wrote it.

(Some of my big ones: clarifying the 2nd amendment one way or the other, addressing abortion rights directly, and adding something to strengthen every citizen's access to voting, e.g. national voting holiday, felon enfranchisement, whatever.)

I'd make it easier to amend, and trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing.

[maratd]

> and trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing

And there is your mistake. Our republic has endured precisely because full trust wasn't placed in the hands of the people, but rather the people were simply another check on the power of the government that was subdivided, distributed, and balanced.

There is a path for amending the constitution and it requires overwhelming consent, as it should.

[Frondo]

I don't believe that I am mistaken in trusting my fellow citizens with the democratic principle of self-governance.

For lots of people, they're not happy, the system doesn't work for them and they have no redress. Telling them it's for their own good? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[maratd]

> For lots of people, they're not happy, the system doesn't work for them and they have no redress.

There are always people who are unhappy. There is no system which will make everyone happy all of the time.

However, if you give the keys to the populace at large with unlimited power, you'll have tyranny of the majority and then you'll have bigger problems to chew on.

Do I really need to cite the most recent election as evidence? Democracy will always lean towards populism. Its only use is as a check on government.

[matt4077]

That was actually the answer Scalia gave me when I asked him a question – must have been about 7 years ago.

(he had given a talk mostly criticizing the idea of enshrining rights in the constitution as an attempt to remove certain ideas from democracy)

[mcv]

The reason it's undemocratic by design, is that they wanted the electoral college to be able to stop bad choices from the people. There is admittedly a petition going to convince the electoral college to actually do that, but I'm doubtful it's going to happen. It seems just undemocratic without any kind of upside.