After the Right made a big deal out of the calls for the elimination of the Electoral College I decided to do a series on the subject…..I mean some of us have been fighting to rid society of this dinosaur for decades just the Right was too goddamn busy imposing their religious beliefs on everyone to notice…..
The 2016 election is over….and Mr. Trump has won the big enchilada….he won the electoral college and it appears that Clinton may have won the popular vote….and division has started yet another debate about the electoral college.
Lots of pros and cons…personally the only solution is a popular vote….period!
I have been calling for the elimination of the EC since 2008 on this blog….and that was when Obama was elected…I guess the Leftist thing is just wrong (but of course not one person will admit it)…and I invite anyone that knows how to use the archives to do so to check my statement…..if you doubt what I say……
But let’s look at some historic perspective (you knew that was coming) on the issue……
When U.S. citizens go to the polls to “elect” a president, they are in fact voting for a particular slate of electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most votes (that is, a plurality) in the state receives all of the state’s electoral votes. The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. (The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, which is the number of senators and representatives it would have if it were permitted representation in Congress.) The electors meet in their respective states 41 days after the popular election. There, they cast a ballot for president and a second for vice president. A candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected president.
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
A bit more on the history……
Source: The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists | TIME
But could there be more to this issue than a simple pro and con debate?
There always is when it comes to American political system……
To be clear, this critique of the racialized origins of the Electoral College should not be interpreted as the cheap product of disappointment over the most recent election results, but rather as an effort to tap into what will likely be a short-lived public appetite for presidential politics in order to explore how US political institutions are themselves always already racialized. To be sure, race and racism in the US context have long served as some of the most significant guarantors of democratic structures and institutions. In short, US democracy itself is a racial project whose fulcrum hinges on policies of inclusion and exclusion.
Source: Slavery, Democracy and the Racialized Roots of the Electoral College
This debate is a debate that has been had before and has accomplished nothing….I will be covering this a bit more in the days and weeks to come….please if there are any opinions we would love to hear them…..