Crosspost with le n!

Faithless elector: [link]

I wonder--did the Electors always vote the way the people in their states wanted?

Faithless electors! [link]

Classic crosspost.

there is also the fact that our founders didn't trust the unwashed masses to vote for president and that is why we have electors who actually vote for President.

Now, this--this is the explanation I understand. I think the intuitive understanding of democracy is the popular vote, and the idea what most people could not want something to happen, but it still does...it's clear that the citizenship test wasn't near thorough enough, because I don't get the stateness. In Jamaica our parishes and counties are more like containers for people--cities and coasts have character, but they don't get to vote, the same way states kinda get to vote here. To be radically simplistic.

But..I get that I don't get it, and it's math, and that's fine. It's certainly better than that preferential woowoo.

I would argue that one cannot underestimate the importance of the individual states and state issues if one wants to understand much of what goes on in the US, past and present.

Yeah. I don't see why states are that important, but y'all do, so it's fine. I can wait until us immigrants take over and don't understand your history. I estimate...a decade, if we knuckle down and toss out the contraceptives.

ita,

what is funny too is that our primary process mirrors this: the majority vote does not select the primary contender for Ds or Rs - we vote for the candidate, but the delegates are the ones who vote at the convention.

So we have at least 2 layers of this bullshit.

OK, some of those faithless electors were just dumb! Like the one who voted for John Ewards.

I don't see why states are that important, but y'all do, so it's fine

Think of them as entities that were once separate republics, basically independent nations. At the time the US was formed, they really were--the only form of government that bound them together was the British crown. When the colonies became independent, they had no central authority binding them altogether, and could well have just gone on their way as independent nations, like Italy in the 18th Century, or ancient Greece.

Which is why we're the "United States" of America, not just America.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Think of them as entities that were once separate republics, basically independent nations.

And we could be living in a very different world if the Civil War had ended differently.

States rights used to be one of the hallmarks of the Republican Party, too. They wanted more state autonomy, less federal (i.e. "big") government.

there is also the fact that our founders didn't trust the unwashed masses to vote for president and that is why we have electors who actually vote for President.

Yes, this. In the words of the founding fathers, democracy is a beautiful thing, except for that part about letting any old yokel vote. Note too that the individual states chose union, and that was a negotiated process. The EC was a means to assure the smaller states that their interests wouldn't be wholly subsumed. (This is also why Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution. They were fearful of the power of their larger neighbour, Pennsylvania, so they were especially motivated to sign on to the protections the Constitution offered.)

In fact, originally I don't think the EC was even a compromise between democracy and state-ocracy. Note that in the early days of the US, many states didn't even have a vote to choose the electors. The state government simply appointed them. There was nothing in the Constitution to stop the people being taken out of the equation completely (except for voting for their own state government).

One other interesting point. As I understand it, from the writings of the time, at least some of the Founding Fathers expected that, more often than not, the Electoral College wouldn't choose the President either. The Constitution has rules for what happens if no candidate gets a majority of the EC vote. (Not a plurality, a majority.) It gets thrown to Congress. (The House chooses the President - only one vote per state - and the Senate chooses the Veep.) Those FFs opposed to the party system envisaged that with numerous factions in play, only a trule exceptional candidate would win majority support. The rest of the time, the House would make the choice. (One last wrinkle: initially, each elector could cast two votes.)

Constitutionally, then, the system worked thus: the states, through whichever means they thought best, selected a representation of worthy, upstanding citizens. These citizens compiled a shortlist of best qualified candidates to assume the Presidency. The House perused this shortlist and selected their favoured candidate.

And then, of course, in 1800 the system did exactly this. The House had the choice between Jefferson and Burr (who was supposed to be Jefferson's running mate). It took 36 votes for the House to reach a conclusion and elect Jefferson.

After that, letting any old yokel vote looked better by comparison. Once the Democratic-Republican unity party broke down, the Democrats under Jackson championed the voice of the people, and the EC system had to be repurposed to try to give voice to a popular vote. And thus the US has the hybrid system it holds today.