Thread by @carterpageshat

ELECTORAL COLLEGE THREAD

Since the Humes & Perinos of the world have forded rivers of their own drool to RT the right's favorite Electoral College fanboy (sorry, no tags for y'all), here's my take on why that is wrong and dumb. Teacher voice engaged, let's go for a ride. /1

As someone who teaches this stuff, I’ve had to outline and consider both sides of the Electoral College argument every year, and for most of my life my privilege allowed me to sit comfortably in my EC ambivalence. /2

But year after year, as good teaching and/or good students pushed me to dig deeper into the EC’s past and present, it became clear that a more realistic evaluation of the EC exposes the need for a more critical analysis. /3

This is how I—a now better-informed scholar and educator—approach our method of electing the president (seriously, tap after the next tweet if you're not in it for the long haul):
/4

The tl;dr point is that while Tara Ross & others argue that the EC protects voters in less populous states & ensures that the radical will of the people is checked by a collection of sage experts, the former was not the purpose of the EC & the latter has never been needed. /5

While the process of electing the president is unambiguously outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and was designed as such for a specific purpose, we must also acknowledge that that the process was not put in place without debate. /6

Let's look at two perspectives worth considering from that debate (this is where most of my last remaining students officially check out...kudos if you endure):
/7

1- In Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton explains the basic principles and purpose behind the Electoral College:
/8

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station & acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
/9
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/f…

This is the age-old "ignorance and passions of the voters protected by the sage and measured voice of reason" argument. Practical? Sure (I guess???). Democratic? Certainly not. /10

But remember, in an age where the voting public was already a VERY narrow snapshot of the American populace, at least the electors that Hamilton envisioned were likely among the (in the minds of the power-elite) better suited for the purpose. Save that sentiment for later. /11

2- James Madison believed that it would be best for an informed public at large to choose their executive, without the check of the Electoral College (we know this from his notes on from the Constitutional Convention as well as letters to his contemporaries). /12

However, Madison also recognized a few truths about the American electorate. Mostly, he saw that it was incomplete (I’m not arguing that he wanted it to be more complete, just that he saw that it was). /13

He admits that disparate enfranchisement by state, voters' inadequate access to information, & the inability of voters to detach their individual, local passions from the need of the collective nation (slaveholders?) may have made that check (albeit corruptible) necessary:
/14

"The local considerations must give way to the general interest," he said at convention on July 25, 1787.
/15
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/d….

One might read this as giving support to the electors at the state level, ensuring that each state's contribution to the election reflected that of the state "in totum." /16

But given he was debating with Connecticut's Oliver Ellsworth & Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, context indicates that Madison was conceding the national interest, rather than individual state protections (or central elites), as the primary purpose of the Electoral College. /17

He reinforced his preference for the will of a broad electorate in his stance on representation as a check against faction and tyranny of the minority in Federalist No. 9 and Federalist No. 10:
/18

"In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried..."
/19

"...and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters." (Federalist No. 10)
/20
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/f…

This is why the Hamiltonian argument won out. In an uncertain system with a new executive experiment, combined widespread apprehension about the broad powers the new Constitution would grant that executive.../21

...the founders created a check/roadblock against confederalist sentiments, regionalism, (the perception of) ignorance, and disparate systems of enfranchisement. In short, for the new government, the adults in the room would choose the adult in the room. /22

The problem is that in our current system this is not the case. For those calling on the electors to use their position of knowledge and authority to override the will of the voters in their states, consider who the electors you actually chose are. /23

I know that we vote for electors (and not a candidate) with substantial ignorance as to who would wield the power of our vote. /24

The problem is unless political parties (leadership and voters) begin to take more seriously the choosing of electors (as Hamilton envisioned) ..we cannot give these individuals more power to choose the president than our own individual votes. /25

These were our electors in 2016—some Hamiltonian, some decidedly not:
/26
politico.com/magazine/thepe…

In fact, it can be argued that instead the EC has actually only ever served the opposite purpose, as it is not clear that the EC has ever performed a check on a misguided electorate.

In presidential electoral history, the EC has overwhelmingly voted with the popular will. /27

In the instances where it hasn't (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016) it’s tough to argue that the EC prevented an ignorant majority from electing a popular but unqualified buffoon or potential tyrant. None of Adams, Tilden, Cleveland, Gore, or Clinton fit that characterization. /28

(I'm aware that Cleveland only won plurality of the popular vote in 1888) /29

Instead what the EC served to do in these cases was what the anti-federalist (big and small state) and slave-holding sympathizers HOPED that it would do:
act as an electoral mercenary in case their candidate got just close enough to unseat someone popular with the other team. /30

In those cases, the "other team" was those not from among the electorate representing slavery, states' rights extremes, isolationist nationalists, or the emerging religious right (re: eastern elites)...all regional or minority blocs. /31

As such, arguments about EC as the protectors of the executive are at best specious or red-herrings & at worst are corruptions of truth and history. Instead, what has been true is that the EC serves to protect the will of voters from less-populous and more radical states. /32

Many of these states had--and have--a history of defending slavery, engaging in disenfranchisement, and villainizing national government, even though it was implemented by those who sought to create a more unified nation and federal system of government. /33

And while the argument about the need to protect the will of less-populous states has some merit on its face and should not be completely ignored, we have to acknowledge two things:
/34

1- the overwhelming (albeit slow and forcefully resisted) progress of our federal elections system has been toward enfranchisement and preventing the tyranny of the minority (see, well, all the Constitutional Amendments addressing voting and elections). /35

2- federalism and representative government—and NOT the Electoral College—are what the framers designed as the check against factions, the tyranny of the majority, and the unequal balance of power due to unequal distribution of wealth and population in our republican system. /36

So while representing the interests of all (including less-populous) states is in the interests of the federal government, it is not the responsibility of the the EC to protect that. It is CERTAINLY not its function to play protector to voters in less-populous states. /37

Madison's concession regarding the inequality of enfranchisement and information holds true today. Many voters are subjected and susceptible to misinformation, campaign lies, lack of practical policy platforms, and are largely ignorant of the nation beyond themselves. /38

The press has been restricted and voters are intimidated and misled. Furthermore, disenfranchisement is rampant (see voter restrictions, the closing of polling locations since Shelby gutted the VRA, and all the BS that has gone on in places like GA in 2018, 2016, and beyond). /39

As such, if the Electoral College is to continue to exist, it has a clear duty. If their task is to set aside local, state, and sectional interests for the good of the broader nation.../40

...then electors should consider the popular vote in their state as well and the broader will of the nation, and should only counteract the national vote if the candidate it chooses presents (honestly) a clear danger to the office and to the people. /41

Rather than protecting the minority, the purpose of the Electoral College is to protect against a TYRANNY of the minority or the ignorance of the majority. To this point, it is failing in both of those mandates. /42

To serve its purpose the EC must be reformed so that the choosing of electors is taken seriously. If left to be appointed by the states or the parties, then their choices should be consented to by a vote of the people of the state electorate. /43

This works if people actually vote and know what they are voting for. Until electors are actually those best qualified to check the whims of a fickle and reactionary electorate, then they serve no purpose. /44

If instead we can manage to hold politicians & parties to a higher standard, the press & the electorate work together to enforce such standards, & the people of this nation are given free, easy, & equitable access to the ballot, then the EC should be eliminated via amendment. /45

What's the test for this? THE CONGRESS SHOULD PROPOSE SUCH AN AMENDMENT and send it to the states (please not in convention) for review. If WE decide to take on the responsibility of electing the president, then we should live and die by that task. /46

If we refuse it, then the EC—particularly the method of choosing electors—should be critically reviewed and reformed via federal legislation or a widespread legislative initiative at the state-level. /47

In sum, because it has really only ever failed to do its job and instead its existence has been co-opted to undermine its original purpose, I think the Electoral College should be abolished.

But what do I know, I’m just a hat. /END