So I’m a New Zealander and I have a pretty good idea on how the electoral college system works but it honestly sounds like something that can be easily corrupted and it feels like it renders the popular vote absolutely useless unless I’m totally missing something obvious?

So yeah if someone could explain to me what the benefits of such a system are, that would be awesome.

Edit - Thanks for the replies so far, already learning a lot!

79 points

At the time the electoral college was devised, the only way to reliably get an important message from a state capital to the federal capital was to send a trusted messenger on a horse. The electors are those trusted messengers.

permalink
report
reply
37 points

Also, back then there was still a lot of disagreement about how the US would work. Was it going to operate be a single, unified country or would it be more like an EU style organization with a unified defense? IE Federalists vs Anti-Federalists? The electoral college was a compromise to let each state run its own elections and only franchise who they wanted. It’s important to remember that the US was not founded as a universal suffrage nation, and has only slowly and after much painful internal struggle expanded civil rights.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

IIRC there was also a desire to put some distance between the unwashed masses and the election. James Madison, for example, was clear in his writings that he feared the system would devolve into mob rule by whichever group could whip up the most angry followers (January 6, 2021 anyone?). The presidential electors have an opportunity to be the adults in the room if the election is a hot mess and cooler heads need to prevail (though they can also swing the other way and wreak havoc so it’s a double-edged sword).

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

It helps those with power keep it. Benefits to everyone else, that it may have had, have been eroded by time, demographics, and or technology.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

When the definition of “everyone else” excluded people without property, women, and minorities, it served its purpose quite well. In fact it continues to serve the purpose of overrepresenting property owning white men. Not as well as back in the 1800s, mind you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

There are benefits?

As a US citizen, it seems like it should be relegated to the last century and not dragged any further into the future.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Americans really have a hard time renewing things. The US is so high on the idea being the best country in the world, that they are afraid to change anything and get very defensive about modernization. I am kind of glad that Germany got a reset and was able to build something new in a modern time. I see how the US and UK really struggle with their excess weight of previous centuries. Ranked voting is more democratic. But how to you tell people that they have to change if they think they have the best system (while their current system clearly is dismantling their society at the same time)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Originally, the benefit was that the president would be chosen by the established powerful men, not the filthy proles.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Electoral_College and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#History

permalink
report
reply
2 points

After reading that second link, it definitely seems like they’re saying the average citizens weren’t smart enough to decide who should be president lol.

Thanks for the links.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s the reasoning, yes. Not so much “not smart enough” as “not civic-minded enough”, that is to say, people are short-sighted and selfish.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

And, in a rural, agrarian society, not educated or up to date on recent events enough to vote in an informed way. Paternalistic, sure, but not completely unreasonable given the era.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’m not sufficiently educated on the subject so I can’t argue either way, but the defense I usually hear is that the sparse farmland states and the densely populated city states have different needs, and that the majority of the population living in cities shouldn’t be making decisions for the rest of the country. So it gives each state an equal say in the executive branch; Otherwise the most populated states hold all the power.

If there’s a problem with this defense of its pro’s, please educate me. I’m not being sarcastic.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I think you’re thinking of the Connecticut Compromise, which established a bicameral Congress with a population-weighted House and state-weighted Senate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The most populated states still hold a lot of power in # of votes in electoral college. It’s not inherently good that small states hold a disproportionate power (vs population) in the electoral college.

In the real world, states may as well vote together as blocks. Only a few states flip to a different party every election.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 8K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.9K

    Posts

  • 321K

    Comments