AHC: Abolish the Electoral College

Would be easier to just have it not adopted.

I'm really reaching back years and years trying to remember this one, so I could be entirely wrong, but wasn't the electoral college an unpopular idea at the constitutional convention, most delegates preferring a President elected by congress, that was only adopted for procedural and tactical reasons to mollify its minority supporters?
 
It seems to me that post-Civil War the Republican party was preoccupied with making as many small states as it could in order to gain disproportionate power. I don't see it wanting to abolish the Electoral College.

As for the writing of the Constitution, it was my understanding that in the first presidential election, George Washington and John Adams were elected by all the state legislatures, and that proved to be a disaster because so many of the legislatures were deadlocked and failed to make a decision. Congress didn't want to give too much power to the ordinary people, so it didn't adopt the system with a direct vote. Congress also didn't want to give too much power to itself (making it a very strange time for Congress), so it didn't adopt a system where Congress chooses. Thus, the Electoral College we know was born.

If I am mistaken, please let me know.
 
Percent of popular vote versus percent of electoral college in the South, 1916:


Alabama---130728-----0.71%12 2.26%
Arkansas---170104----0.92% 9 1.69%
Florida-----80734------0.44% 6 1.13%
Georgia 160681 0.87% 14 2.64%
Louisiana 92982 0.50% 10 1.88%
Mississippi 86679 0.47% 10 1.88%
NC 289837 1.56% 12 2.26%
SC 63952 0.35% 9 1.69%
Texas 372467 2.01% 20 3.77%
Virginia 152052 0.82% 12 2.26%
Total 18536585 8.65% 531 21.46%

Argh, can't get that to format correctly. The point is that the South holds 21.46% of the Electoral College votes but only 8.65% of the national total in 1916.
Okay, I'm confused. I'm seeing 18,536,585 as total S votes, 8.65% as %pop vote, 21.46% as %EC vote. So what's the 531?:confused:
 
Regarding the Electoral votes split by district, isn't that tipically going to result in gerrymandering having a large influence on the Presidential outcome, something nobody wants I expect?
Or "Presidential districts" would be distinct from congressional ones?
By the way, I never understood why the mapping of districts doesn't seem to have a "Check and Balances" system in place. Shouldn't the court be able to quash silly redistricting?
 

jahenders

Banned
The courts review redistricting with some frequency. However, if you look at districts nationwide, MANY are screwy in one way or another. So, to overrule one they have to establish that it causes distinct harm, though you could probably show that for many districts.

The check and balance, such as it is, is that it's typically done by majorities in a state, which tend to change over time.

Regarding the Electoral votes split by district, isn't that tipically going to result in gerrymandering having a large influence on the Presidential outcome, something nobody wants I expect?
Or "Presidential districts" would be distinct from congressional ones?
By the way, I never understood why the mapping of districts doesn't seem to have a "Check and Balances" system in place. Shouldn't the court be able to quash silly redistricting?
 
The late David Currie (of the University of Chicago Law School) had a discussion of the various proposals of the 1810's and 1820's, "Choosing the Pilot: Proposed Amendments to the Presidential Selection Process, 1809-29. " http://web.archive.org/web/20050128145110/http://greenbag.org/Currie Reprint.pdf

As he notes, amendments to provide for choosing electors by district regularly passed the House--and just as regularly failed in the Senate, the stronghold of the small states.

BTW, AIUI under most of the proposals the presidential electoral districts would *not* be identical with congressional districts. This is because (1) most of the proposals retained the two extra votes each state gets due to its Senate representation (not to do that would make the small states even more hostile to the proposal); and (2) the proposals generally provided for "pure" district elections, not two electors to be chosen at large in each state in addition to the district electors. Some of the proposals explicitly stated that the electoral districts would have to be of approximately equal population--but of course this is perfectly compatible with gerrymandering. True, the gerrymanders by Democrats in some states and National Republicans (or, later, Whigs) in others *might* cancel each other out, but there is no guarantee of this.
 
If the president is elected by who wins the majority of majorities of a bunch of arbitary districts, that would be just as bad as the electoral college. The only fair thing would be to simply count the total votes, and let the winner of that be the president.
 

jahenders

Banned
While that might be "fair," depending on one's definition and point of view, our country was set up so that it wasn't just an unfettered majority. In this scenario, you could have someone elected who got almost no votes outside of CA, NY, TX, and FL.

If the president is elected by who wins the majority of majorities of a bunch of arbitary districts, that would be just as bad as the electoral college. The only fair thing would be to simply count the total votes, and let the winner of that be the president.
 
The best chance is the 1960s. In 1969, the Bayh-Cellar Amendment overwhelmingly passed the House, was endorsed by both Nixon and LBJ, the Chamber of Commerce, the LCV, and numerous other good government groups and business groups, and looked like it had decent odds of passage in state legislatures. Even opposition from small states was fairly muted.

The issue became subject to a Senate filibuster. And Nixon opted not to whip Republican senators to support. So it wound up falling 10-15 short of Senate passage.

A scenario where 1968 ends up a messier election - maybe a Humphrey win in the House? - could create the congressional support to pass it. Something may also have passed during the Great Society Congress, as the issue came up for debate several times during the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe had the 1960 election gone differently.
 
Top