(01-29-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

The logic went in reverse of that expressed in your question. State sovereignty was a given. It was also a given that the states, not the federal government, conduct elections. From these principles the electoral college followed.

The electoral college is not a new idea in history, and it's not unusual for republics to use an electoral college or similar system. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is not directly elected, and those seem to work well enough, even in countries allegedly more "progressive" than the U.S.

I don't get how this response relates to the start of this thread.

You started this line of comments because you said that the founding fathers thought otherwise that other considerations, besides state sovereignty, should be considered when discussing the EC.

Two things - you're 100% correct that me stating an opinion is, in fact, my opinion (I didn't think that IMO was necessary).

Second, you avoided my question about whether the founding fathers considered anything else besides state sovereignty when adopting the EC. Because your bolded statement makes it seems like you don't think they did. And I specifically asked this because the founding fathers very clearly did think about more than state sovereignty when creating the EC, because some were very specific as to why they wanted electors selected the way they did - most notably, Hamilton (IIRC) argued for the EC as a way for the more intelligent people (the electors) to protect the country from a bad POTUS chosen by the less intelligent people (the population). Basically, to avoid the mob rule as you mentioned earlier.

I've never argued to ignore the issue of states' sovereignty, but rather, it's not the be all, end all, of the EC.

It was all related to state sovereignty. Hamilton argued for giving the states, and and not the mob, the ability to elect the president - but the point - and the relevant historical outcome - was state-run elections of the electors. If not direct election by the mob, the alternative was state-generated electors. All of this was in the context of state sovereignty as established fact. Hamilton et. al. saw mob rule as a threat - and to what? State sovereignty, among other things.

I'm not really sure what your point is. My point - however much you parse the details - is that the electoral college and state sovereignty are related and interdependent concepts. You seem to believe you score points if you can find some ancillary reason why an electoral college is a good idea, but state sovereignty is the fundamental and basic reason that trumps all others.

Hamilton argued for giving the electors, not the states, the ability to elect the president.

Quote:It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

My point initial point is simple - there is more to the EC than just state sovereignty.

No matter how foundational you feel state sovereignty was (and I agree it was foundational), there is sufficient evidence that other considerations were very important in develop the EC today. So when we discuss pros/cons or modifications to the EC, it isn't irrelevant to discuss them in relation to concepts outside of state sovereignty - yet I have been basically told that this type of conversation isn't allowed.

You're allowed to discuss it as far as I'm concerned, and you don't need my permission. My opinion is that the concepts outside of state sovereignty aren't important enough to merit undermining the electoral college.

As for the founding fathers, they had to come up with a document that respected state sovereignty, or it would never be ratified by the sovereign states. The relative importance of state sovereignty to their success, was the relative importance of oxygen to other gases in the atmosphere to our continued existence.

Parse, parse, parse... Hamilton said electors should be voted by the general mass, but since elections were to be conducted by the state and local government it's clearly implied we was arguing for the electoral college system we have today, unless you can find anywhere he said he was in favor of a nationwide election of electors conducted by the federal government.

In gauging what was ultimately most important to a group of persons developing a process, I tend to look at their decisions and the outcome, as strange as that logic may seem to you. What we have is the electoral college decided by state elections, and what we had were state-elected senators. They considered direct election, and rejected the idea.