Yes and no.
A major reason for the electoral college -- as for the Senate -- was to make sure that heavily populated states didn't totally overpower less populated states.
To understand why Trump won, look at Democratic hysteria
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
A major reason for the electoral college -- as for the Senate -- was to make sure that heavily populated states didn't totally overpower less populated states.
I dunno about your prediction down the road, but people have been pointing out Trump's liberal past since the day he announced he was running for president.
The liberal past is of course the inner source of his constant lying.
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.
One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.
A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.
The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.
The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.
https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
Do you think this backs up your claim?
Last edited:
Here's what I wrote:
The framers rejected a popular vote, and many other ideas. Instead, they chose a democratically-elected representative model. The representatives we elect in turn select the president.
It's not hard.
I understand how the electoral college works, thank you. That's not what my post that you initially responded to was about.
The internet hasn't changed anything except for the fear of 50 favorite sons, which was never a real problem, anyway.
Do you believe the dislike of Dems for Trump exceeds the dislike Repubbers had for Bill Clinton? And, it doesnt approach the level of dislike you have for Hillary.
What maddens you Lute more than anything is the fact you know what a slime ball Trump is but you have to like him.
I don't object to a lot of stuff he is doing but the guy has many more faults than assets...and I think he has broken the law along the way. And if he has broken the law.....he has to go. That is the way we roll in Merica. I can live with a dweeb like Pence more easily than a slime ball like Trump.
If he's broken the law, he has to go, absolutely. That is, a significant law. If Mueller discovers that Trump, for example, collected a bottle deposit on a bottle he bought in a state that doesn't charge a deposit, I'd forgive that. Likewise speeding. Treason, on the other hand......
Similar threads
