I'm posting this because Colorado is voting this election about whether to join a coalition of states that will send their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. It seems that many people are...
I'm posting this because Colorado is voting this election about whether to join a coalition of states that will send their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. It seems that many people are annoyed with the electoral college and want to get rid of it.
I don't know that it's the best solution, but I don't think getting rid of it is the right way to go. It seems that one of the important points of the electoral college is that each state has some power in determining the federal executive branch, and the federal executive branch has no (direct) power to influence the states and their electors. I fear that if the electoral college is abolished, the federal executive branch will gain a lot more power over the elections.
There are other federalist papers that may be more appropriate to discussing the difference between the state and federal powers because this one only discusses checks and balances in the federal government explicitly, but I think the theories are applicable to checks and balances between state and federal as well.
How, exactly, does obligating the state electors to the popularly elected candidate give the federal executive branch more control over elections that are already administrated by county...
How, exactly, does obligating the state electors to the popularly elected candidate give the federal executive branch more control over elections that are already administrated by county governments and certified by state governments?
I don't think it gets rid of the electoral college? The electors still vote. Granted, they are pledged to vote a certain way, but there are corner cases where it may be useful to have actual...
I don't think it gets rid of the electoral college? The electors still vote.
Granted, they are pledged to vote a certain way, but there are corner cases where it may be useful to have actual people involved who can do something sensible, like if the presidential candidate with the most votes dies. It's messy, but seems better than an algorithm?
The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. The collection was commonly known as The Federalist until the name The Federalist Papers emerged in the 20th century.
Note that although very old and respected these days, the Federalist papers were essentially political, written as part of a newspaper campaign to convince people to ratify the Constitution. So,...
Note that although very old and respected these days, the Federalist papers were essentially political, written as part of a newspaper campaign to convince people to ratify the Constitution. So, they emphasized the Constitution's good points and passed over any possible weaknesses. And it's not like James Madison (in this case) really knew how it would all turn out.
Certainly, and for a good contrast, the Anti-Federalist papers really ought to be read alongside the Federalist ones. The authors were absolutely correct in many regards - particularly the...
Certainly, and for a good contrast, the Anti-Federalist papers really ought to be read alongside the Federalist ones. The authors were absolutely correct in many regards - particularly the expansion of federal powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
I agree! Though I think they're still very relevant as an explanation for why the constitution was written the way it was. I think the scenario we see in the US today is something they thought...
I agree! Though I think they're still very relevant as an explanation for why the constitution was written the way it was. I think the scenario we see in the US today is something they thought about (factions) and they were very worried about them. As it turns out these factions have managed to break down a lot of the separations that the framers devised from the beginning.
I'm not an expert in politics and I don't really have a strong opinion about the electoral college, but this was something that I hadn't heard discussed before, and to a lot of people the EC seems like a Chesterton's Fence: "why do we have this stupid thing? get rid of it!" Maybe I'm not talking to the right people, but any argument for removing a thing has to be framed in the context of why that thing was created in the first place.
It’s my understanding that the electoral college never worked how it was originally envisioned, though. At first, there were pretty fundamental bugs in how presidential elections were done. In...
It’s my understanding that the electoral college never worked how it was originally envisioned, though. At first, there were pretty fundamental bugs in how presidential elections were done. In particular, the second-place candidate became Vice President. This was fixed in the Twelfth Amendment.
The US Constitution was written by men who had little idea how party politics would work, since political parties hadn’t been invented yet. Their naive attempts to avoid splitting into factions failed utterly when they themselves ended up splitting into bitterly antagonistic political parties. The Federalist papers can be read as shedding some light on what they were thinking, but despite their intentions they often got things very wrong, and just because they said something would turn out a certain way doesn’t mean it actually worked.
The way it works now is after it got patched up. It’s legacy code that sort of works but is very hard to change.
I'm posting this because Colorado is voting this election about whether to join a coalition of states that will send their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. It seems that many people are annoyed with the electoral college and want to get rid of it.
I don't know that it's the best solution, but I don't think getting rid of it is the right way to go. It seems that one of the important points of the electoral college is that each state has some power in determining the federal executive branch, and the federal executive branch has no (direct) power to influence the states and their electors. I fear that if the electoral college is abolished, the federal executive branch will gain a lot more power over the elections.
There are other federalist papers that may be more appropriate to discussing the difference between the state and federal powers because this one only discusses checks and balances in the federal government explicitly, but I think the theories are applicable to checks and balances between state and federal as well.
How, exactly, does obligating the state electors to the popularly elected candidate give the federal executive branch more control over elections that are already administrated by county governments and certified by state governments?
I don't think it gets rid of the electoral college? The electors still vote.
Granted, they are pledged to vote a certain way, but there are corner cases where it may be useful to have actual people involved who can do something sensible, like if the presidential candidate with the most votes dies. It's messy, but seems better than an algorithm?
For those unfamiliar with the federalist papers:
Note that although very old and respected these days, the Federalist papers were essentially political, written as part of a newspaper campaign to convince people to ratify the Constitution. So, they emphasized the Constitution's good points and passed over any possible weaknesses. And it's not like James Madison (in this case) really knew how it would all turn out.
Certainly, and for a good contrast, the Anti-Federalist papers really ought to be read alongside the Federalist ones. The authors were absolutely correct in many regards - particularly the expansion of federal powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
I agree! Though I think they're still very relevant as an explanation for why the constitution was written the way it was. I think the scenario we see in the US today is something they thought about (factions) and they were very worried about them. As it turns out these factions have managed to break down a lot of the separations that the framers devised from the beginning.
I'm not an expert in politics and I don't really have a strong opinion about the electoral college, but this was something that I hadn't heard discussed before, and to a lot of people the EC seems like a Chesterton's Fence: "why do we have this stupid thing? get rid of it!" Maybe I'm not talking to the right people, but any argument for removing a thing has to be framed in the context of why that thing was created in the first place.
It’s my understanding that the electoral college never worked how it was originally envisioned, though. At first, there were pretty fundamental bugs in how presidential elections were done. In particular, the second-place candidate became Vice President. This was fixed in the Twelfth Amendment.
The US Constitution was written by men who had little idea how party politics would work, since political parties hadn’t been invented yet. Their naive attempts to avoid splitting into factions failed utterly when they themselves ended up splitting into bitterly antagonistic political parties. The Federalist papers can be read as shedding some light on what they were thinking, but despite their intentions they often got things very wrong, and just because they said something would turn out a certain way doesn’t mean it actually worked.
The way it works now is after it got patched up. It’s legacy code that sort of works but is very hard to change.