[vundercind]

The idea of choosing wise locals to go judge the candidates and choose on our behalf (since a general election for president is kinda crazy—they were right about that) fell apart pretty much instantly when we started actually holding elections, making the institution all but pointless except for presenting opportunities to attack our democracy with weird procedural shit because it’s more complicated than it needs to be (see, ahem, certain recent events).

We don’t need the College to weight the vote toward states without people in them, if that’s what we want to do. Even if we accept that that’s a good goal, the College is not a good way to do it.

[Dalewyn]

The thing is it's not the citizens of a State choosing the POTUS, it's the citizens of a State choosing which candidate their State will choose for POTUS.

Remember, the US is a federation of sovereign States and POTUS as Chief Executive of the Federal government represents and is chosen by the States thereof. Each State represents its citizens respectively.

The reason the College gives more weight to less populous States is, again, the need to represent States at the federal level in a way they already agree with but separated from the Legislature. So each State gets 2 Electors plus at least 1 Elector according to their population, representing the Senators and Representatives they would have in Congress. Remember that the Senate gives equal representation to all States regardless of population; California and Rhode Island each have the same representation in the Senate.

Part of the reason Japan doesn't have an Electoral College is because they aren't as concerned about separating the Executive and Legislative Branches and they aren't a federation of sovereign States.

[comte7092]

> Remember, the US is a federation of sovereign States and POTUS as Chief Executive of the Federal government represents and is chosen by the States thereof. Each State represents its citizens respectively.

This isn’t even accurate from the perspective of 1789. The articles of confederation created a model akin to what you’ve outlined. The constitution created a quasi blend of popular representation and state level representation in the federal government as a result of several different compromises in order to form a stable national government.

That isn’t how anything effectively works today though. The federal government has undergone numerous reforms both explicitly within the constitution and implicitly without any formal constitutional changes. These include the direct election of senators, income taxes, etc but also the effective binding of presidential electors to the outcome of the popular vote within a state.

Americans today don’t think of themselves as citizens of the state of California, they think of themselves as Americans solely, the former concept being absolutely foreign and strange to them.

Finally, the EC gives very little benefit to small states. The relative impact is consistently overstated. The only place that small state over representation effectively exists is in the senate.

[Dalewyn]

>This isn’t even accurate from the perspective of 1789. The articles of confederation created a model akin to what you’ve outlined. The constitution created a quasi blend of popular representation and state level representation in the federal government as a result of several different compromises in order to form a stable national government.

The Constitution vests all powers with the people, and certain powers are delegated to States at the pleasure of the people. The States in turn delegate certain powers to the Federal government at the pleasure of the States.

While it certainly looks the other way, the hierarchy of political power in America has always been People > States > Federal.

The Constitution also mandates separations of power between the three branches of government, unlike say the Westminster system where the Legislative branch elects the Chief Executive at their pleasure.

>That isn’t how anything effectively works today though. The federal government has undergone numerous reforms both explicitly within the constitution and implicitly without any formal constitutional changes. These include the direct election of senators, income taxes, etc but also the effective binding of presidential electors to the outcome of the popular vote within a state.

Indeed, and States Rights vs. Federal Powers continues to remain a hot topic because both sides want more power.

Incidentally, the legal requirement for electors to follow the election result of their State is decided by each State. Most States have this law, but some do not. The Constitution explicitly gives the States this authority, not the Federal government.

>Americans today don’t think of themselves as citizens of the state of California, they think of themselves as Americans solely, the former concept being absolutely foreign and strange to them.

Is it? There are memes about Californians and Floridians, not to mention stereotypes of New Yorkers and Texans among others and otherwise simple pride in your home state (particularly prevalent among servicemen and veterans).

The National Guards of each State are also rooted in the concept that each State is sovereign and will have a military force legally independent from the Federal military force.

>Finally, the EC gives very little benefit to small states. The relative impact is consistently overstated. The only place that small state over representation effectively exists is in the senate.

The benefit to smaller States in the EC is nearly if not perfectly identical to that in Congress because apportionments are deliberately identical.

[comte7092]

> The States in turn delegate certain powers to the Federal government at the pleasure of the States.

This is blatantly false. The constitution explicitly states that that it draws its power directly from the people “we the people” in the preamble. From the the supremacy clause explicitly states that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and that the heiarchy from there is federal law, treaties and then state law. The caveat being that the federal government is delegated limited, enumerated powers by the constitution.

[Dalewyn]

Here's the thing though: The Constitution and amendments thereof are (re)written and ratified by the States at the States' pleasure, which answer to the Peoples of the States respectively. The Federal government cannot modify the Constitution by itself, it's at the mercy of the States and their Peoples.

Thus the pecking order: People > States > Federal.

The People can demand their respective States to modify the Constitution as desired to (re)define the powers delegated from the People to the State and Federal governments.

[comte7092]

The states didn’t write nor did they ratify the constitution (it was done at special conventions separate from the state governments themselves), nor do they write amendments.

I honestly don’t know what to tell you at this point. This is basic constitutional history and legal theory, the federal government draws its authority directly from the people.

[comte7092]

> The benefit to smaller States in the EC is nearly if not perfectly identical to that in Congress because apportionments are deliberately identical.

Due to the equal weight of the two houses of congress, the senate is disproportionately powerful in a way that two electoral votes are not.

[vundercind]

The actual electors are basically pointless though. You can assign the electoral votes however the states decide to (some split it, et c) and that’s that. The rest is risky pageantry (and not even an entertaining sort!) and has been very nearly since day 1. The human electors have never really functioned like they were supposed to.

[Dalewyn]

I agree that the electors being actual people are mostly an artifact of a bygone era at this point. It's even illegal in most States for an elector to vote contrary to what the State's citizens decided.

That being said though, Congress still has authority to act as a failsafe in the event the College deadlocks and Congressmen are most definitely actual people, so maybe there is some obscure value left in Electors likewise being actual people.

In the interests of Chesterton's Fence and Not Fixing What Ain't Broke(tm), so long as the human nature doesn't become a significant problem it's probably not worth checking out the consequences of changing things around.

[comte7092]

> That being said though, Congress still has authority to act as a failsafe

The irony is that, as originally envisioned, what seems like a failsafe now was how they thought the election would be decided. The EC was just supposed to be a filter, the final election was Congress voting as state blocs. The framers didn’t see the party system coming though.

> Not Fixing What Ain't Broke

If there’s one thing that Americans can generally agree on, it’s that things are definitely broke, just maybe not the particular thing that is broken.

Having too much rigidity in a system is how things end up collapsing out of nowhere. As stated in my prior comments, there’s actually been a significant amount of change and adaption in the constitutional order since 1789, it has just been implicitly down rather than explicitly so in the form of constitutional amendments.