The “founding fathers” would be against the electoral college today too. The electoral college was an idea to try to get the people to directly vote for the president.
The electoral college was necessary because it would have been logistically impossible for people living in 18th and 19th century America to be able to participate in a single-day one person one vote election, given their level of technology at the time.
We live in the 21st century. We have instantaneous means of communication via the internet making designating an elector to travel to Washington unnecessary, a greatly expanded infrastructure via roads and mass transit for people to travel to polling places in a reasonable amount of time in a day, computers that can tally the ballots many hundreds of times faster than a human being can, and vastly expanded capacity for handling the logistics of running a nationwide election including a complex bureaucracy dedicated to oversight and enforcement of voting laws and regulations.
The electoral college is an archaic system whose only purpose has been completely supplanted by modern technology. Any notion of rogue electors defending the republic from authoritarians and populists is not only historically false, but given the fact that they failed to prevent exactly that situation from happening once already, laughably ineffective.
The electoral college was necessary because it would have been logistically impossible for people living in 18th and 19th century America to be able to participate in a single-day one person one vote election, given their level of technology at the time.
That had nothing to do with it. It would have been extremely easy for people in each state to count the votes for that state, then bring those vote totals to the capital where those state-totals are added together to get the final country-wide count. The problem is that that kind of simple, one-person one-vote system means that each vote would be weighted equally, and in some states there was a large portion of the population that couldn’t vote but the state’s decision-makers still wanted that portion to affect how much say that state had in choosing the President.
So basically, the Electoral College is there because of slavery.
You are correct, of course. Based on the writings of the founders at the time they established the system, it was clear that the system was never intended to be a democratic one in the first place. They didn’t trust each other and they certainly didn’t trust uneducated rural Americans with the power to select the chief executive.
The fact that they couldn’t agree on whether or not to count a slave as a full person for the purposes of counting population is all the more reason the system should have been swept away ages ago.
Also, there have been times where electors got the names wrong lol. Imagine losing because somebody put your name wrong. I mean I guess there’s precedent for the supreme Court picking a winner already. God I hate this country.
The election is not and has never been a single day affair. People like Trump are just trying to make it into one because it gives them a better chance at winning.
I didn’t mean to imply it was. Just that before America was well developed with sophisticated infrastructure, it would have been a tall ask to have voters in rural areas show up at a specific location at a specific time to vote. It would have taken counties several days to collect all of the ballots, tally them, and hand them off to someone who then had to report those results to the state, and then after all the counties reported in the state would appointed an elector to go to Washington on horseback to deliver the results in person. Electors made sense at the time - it funneled the communications down to a single official entity, rather than trying to organize the election centrally and delivering ballots from the far corners of the United States delivered to Washington DC to be counted and certified.
We could cut out the electoral college and very little about our voting process would change, it would just eliminate an archaic and historically anti-democratic system that works behind the scenes to contribute nothing of value in our current society, aside from being a very tantalizing point of failure that has already been targeted by election fraudsters.
I don’t think this is true. The commonly cited reference is James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10, I’ll provide the relevant excerpt and a Wikipedia link, though I’ll urge caution as they aren’t authoritative sources by any means. Bolding is mine.
Preamble
Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9 and is titled “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism.
Cherry-picked quote cited by Garry Wills
Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book Explaining America, he adopts the position of Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison’s framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: “Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such”.
EDIT: Here’s where I first heard of the argument that the US is not a democracy (in the sense it’s thought of by everyday use, as opposed to the Greek which involves the concept of demos. He’s a Marxist, thought it might be relevant and wouldn’t want to waste your time only to figure it out later.
EDIT EDIT: I didn’t even make my point, whoops. I think the founding fathers were not unaware of the current state of affairs of the electoral college being probsble, rather it was included by design.
The electoral college exists because the founding fathers didn’t want normal people voting for president. The whole point is to isolate people from directly choosing a president.
Which is why there’s still a ton of delay in the process. There’s about a month between voting for electors and them voting, and several months before the president was inaugurated.
Within a short time after Ajit Pai was appointed to the FCC chair, there was an article at Ars Technica about net neutrality being rescinded. The article also detailed the many votes against consumers on Pai’s record. I sent a link to my mother, who voted for Trump, telling her that this was partially her fault and that it affected everyone, not just her.
We have a “no politics” rule, now, instituted by me. Our relationship couldn’t survive otherwise. Just tell me about the grandkids, your pets, the weather. Never tell me how you voted to fuck up the world.
Going to guess it is significantly easier to be competent enough to kill someone with hypoxia rather than a cocktail of multiple constantly changing drugs administered by someone who had little training.
Yeah this is great if you work at an honest company, but it could also cause a lot of side effects in shitty companies. Management will start underreporting on cases or even sweeping them under the rug to save their bottom line, potentially causing more outbreaks by not telling close contacts they might be infected which lets them spread it even more. Plus the whole “must be proven it was contracted at work” sounds like there’s a lot of room for fuckery.
I don’t think it would be that hard. My staff work 100% remotely but sometimes need to come into the office. It won’t apply to every situation but if they can prove they were home and then at work and then back home, I think we’d cover it.
You also said “I don’t think it would be that hard.” Unless they’re a shut-in who lives alone it’s going to be tough to prove they didn’t get it from someone else in the house, or when they picked up dinner, or went out with friends, or …
It wouldn’t. They have an app that tracks any travel required for work. If it shows they were only at home or the office the whole time, it would be approved. You don’t have to be a shut-in to stay home for a workday.
And your point? If 2 days afterwards, they report being sick and they can show that they were only at work and at home, they’d be covered. You people act like contact tracing doesn’t exist.
Yes, the rampant spread of covid will make it difficult to make the case it was caught at work, unless the work is somewhere covid is known to be like healthcare or where an outbreak is known. Unless and until we have sufficient infection control measures in most places it will continue to be difficult to know where one was exposed.
Unfortunately it’s already the norm in many workplaces to not inform employees of outbreaks. There’s little to no requirements for reporting cases so businesses have no responsibility to keep covid out of the workplace and people are getting sick at work. This ruling is a result of that reality, not a precipitator.
Oh wow, didn’t know that was the norm in the US. Where I live, it’s still common practice to send a memo out to any relevant people, and offer days off no questions asked if you feel any symptoms coming on.
Under the law, “each school district, county office of education, and charter school” would be required to have at least one gender-neutral bathroom on campus on or before July 1, 2026.
Whut?? Why not just make them all human restrooms? How does it takes two+ years to switch some signage and inform people to use whatever door they wish?
I’ve been living in a city with “gender-neutral” restrooms for so long that I forget what it used to be like. Well, aside from sports and entertainment complexes.
They may want to allow time for remodeling instead of just new signage. Maybe better stalls for actual privacy. I hate the typical stall I see in the US.
In my small town (15K) in MA, we call it “uptown” and it’s doing great!
Small theater with plenty of live events. Well used library. New brewpub in the old fire house. New sushi joint. Brand new ice cream shop. Small, but, functional dessert bakery, Pho shop, and soon a new butcher/seafood shop.
Throw in other restaurants, pizza joints, barber, salon, liquor store.
Plenty of people living right there also. It’s a very successful New England “village”. There’s even a really nice band stand on the center park where they have all types of activities. Free concerts every Thursday night during Summer and Christmas caroling the Thursday before Christmas.
That actually sounds cool. My experience with downtown areas has been less than positive… more of a maze, everything very overpriced… now that I think about it it’s very similar to a large airport.
Shame as it’d be nice to just walk around for all your needs… you’d think it would actually be more cost effective.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.