Thread by @politicablue

My mentions are blowing up with debates about the Electoral College. For those who attach some sort of reverence to it based on “what the founders” said, let me note that of the 17 amends ratified after the Bill of Rights, FIVE CHANGED SOME ASPECT OF PRES ELECTIONS. 1/

Under the orig Constitution, the person with the most EC votes became Pres; the runner-up became Veep. So...Pres Trump and VP Clinton?? A handful of elections were enuf to show stupidity of that idea. The 12th A (1804) provided for Pres and VP to run as a ticket. 2/

The 20th A (1932) changed the start/ end dates of presidential terms. Constit originally made term start on March 4. 20th A changed it to Jan. 20. What made sense in days before phones/telegraph became a prob when communication and travel improved. 3/

The 22nd A (1951) limited president to 2 terms. Not an issue until FDR was elected 4 times: prior to that, presidents had followed Washington’s lead by only seeking two terms. 4/

The 23rd A (1961) gave DC 3 electoral votes, so that DC residents could finally cast a meaningful vote for president. 5/

The 25th A (1967) addressed several aspects of presidency, including presidential succession and procedures for filling vacancy in Veep position. (And also created another mechanism for pres removal.) 6/

BUT WAIT: I’M NOT DONE 7/

The 15th (1870) 19th (1920), and 26th (1971) A’s forced states to expand franchise to “new” groups: nonwhites, women , and people at least 18 years old. 8/

The 24th A (1964) prevented states from levying poll taxes, which effectively prevented poor people from voting. 9/

And the 17th A (1913) established the direct election of senators. (Original constitution provided that state legislatures should choose senators.) 10/

THAT’S 10—COUNT THEM, 10—amends dealing with voting, elections, and the presidency, with 5 speaking directly to the presidency. 11/

Some takeaways:
1. The founders did a crap job creating a workable presidential election process, something that subsequent generation of Americans have spent a lot of time trying to improve. 12/

2. What made sense 200+ years ago made less sense as circumstances changed. Eg, a March 4 start date made perfect sense in the 1790s. Not so much in the 20th century. 13/

3. We’ve dramatically altered constitutional procedures for choosing public officials before. More than once. Direct election of senators, anyone? 14/

4. The arc of constitutional change has tended towards giving more people the ability to vote. (I’m well aware of the history of disenfranchisement efforts. Don’t @ me. I’m talking about the text of the Constitution.) 15/

5. Sometimes it takes unusual occurrences (FDR’s presidency; Woodrow Wilson’s stroke; JFK’s assassination) for “flaws” in the presidential election process to become noticeable. Like, perhaps, 2 elections in 16 years in which EC winner not the popular vote winner? 16/

CONCLUSION: The EC is not some sancrosanct part of the Constitution. It’s a mechanism designed to limit popular rule in favor of elite rule. It also helped secure the willingness of smaller states and slave-owning states to ratify the Constitution. 17/

We can eliminate it if we want to. We can also undermine it by 1) adopting the national popular vote compact (where states agree to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote) or 2) awarding EC votes proportionally within states. 18/

Some of these changes are easier to make than others; they all have virtues and limitations. But for pity’s sake, can we please stop talking about the EC as if the sheer fact that it’s in the Constitution makes it somehow untouchable? /end