Bill O'Reilly sums it up.

[Cozarkian]

It's not total bullshit, just partial.

Based upon the record cited by agent00f, some people felt the legislature was more qualified to elect the President, but others thought would keep the President from acting independently and wanted popular vote.

The alternatives were election by state executives, which big states wouldn't like, election by popular vote, which southern states wouldn't like, and the EC, which was least objectionable.

Madison's concerns regarding tyranny of the majority must have been addressed by the representative nature of Congress, as he was in favor of popular vote. Of course, he suggested that was because only a qualified person could ever become well-known enough to be elected. I think in this age of famous for being famous, he would have to admit that was wrong.

 

[desura]

Yeah, trying to tar the Electoral College as a slavery-linked institution is again...people seeing slavery in everything and simplifying every single issue to slavery, and then using it as a hammer to demonize and bring about a partisan point.

 

[K1052]

Yeah, trying to tar the Electoral College as a slavery-linked institution is again...people seeing slavery in everything and simplifying every single issue to slavery, and then using it as a hammer to demonize and bring about a partisan point.

A system that was intentionally set up to give outsized political power to southern states by counting slaves partially for purposes of representation in the HoR (and thus EC votes) has nothing to do with slavery. Alrighty then.

 

[agent00f]

Oh well I forgot.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

Yeah, trying to tar the Electoral College as a slavery-linked institution is again...people seeing slavery in everything and simplifying every single issue to slavery, and then using it as a hammer to demonize and bring about a partisan point.

Madison's own words are linked above. Too bad you folks aren't the reading type.

 

[Jhhnn]

A system that was intentionally set up to give outsized political power to southern states by counting slaves partially for purposes of representation in the HoR (and thus EC votes) has nothing to do with slavery. Alrighty then.

It hasn't had anything to do with slavery since the Civil War. It's just a convention that gave anomalous results only twice in our history prior to this century. Neither of those elections had the highly divisive characteristics of this election. We kept it because it almost always reflected the will of the people & because it would be hard to change. The only purpose it served for the entire 20th century was to be a political networking event.

And, to be entirely frank, whatever high falutin' principles it was supposed to serve were tossed to the wind when they rubber stamped Donald Trump. That travesty will shape the future.

 

[zinfamous]

A system that was intentionally set up to give outsized political power to southern states by counting slaves partially for purposes of representation in the HoR (and thus EC votes) has nothing to do with slavery. Alrighty then.

Dude! It's "States' rights." It's always states' rights. Stop using icky words when we have better words.

Please, let's honor the original safe spaces created by conservatives, and stick to the states rights terminology. It's best not to think about things that are obviously unpopular.

Heh, maybe conservatives can just start calling Trump "Reggie," so that they can say bad things about the horrible things he is doing without having to directly admit how horrible their choice was.

 

[xthetenth]

Dude! It's "States' rights." It's always states' rights. Stop using icky words when we have better words.

Please, let's honor the original safe spaces created by conservatives, and stick to the states rights terminology. It's best not to think about things that are obviously unpopular.

I think you mean use the terminology with the correct political overtones. 🙂

 

[K1052]

It hasn't had anything to do with slavery since the Civil War. It's just a convention that gave anomalous results only twice in our history prior to this century. Neither of those elections had the highly divisive characteristics of this election. We kept it because it almost always reflected the will of the people & because it would be hard to change. The only purpose it served for the entire 20th century was to be a political networking event.

And, to be entirely frank, whatever high falutin' principles it was supposed to serve were tossed to the wind when they rubber stamped Donald Trump. That travesty will shape the future.

I had addressed those points previously, my bone of contention is with trying to carve the EC's origins out of the context of the time in which it was created.

 

[Jhhnn]

I had addressed those points previously, my bone of contention is with trying to carve the EC's origins out of the context of the time in which it was created.

Whatever the intended purpose back in 1789 it no longer applies today.

If the Trump presidency appears to lack legitimacy, that's because it does thanks to the EC.