Is the Electoral College basically a DEI program?

[MuchBetterThanThis]

My wife just asked me that and I never gave it a thought.
The states that are Republican are afforded “equal” power even though they actually don’t have the same population representation of the rest of the collective/UNITED states.
I’m thinking Montana, South/North Dakota, and the rest of em.
Just a thought on the DEI issue🤔

[Voltaire2]

1. It does not promote diversity equity or inclusion, so no.

And allowing their framing of DEI as negative is counter productive.

[hlthe2b]

3. I could not agree more. Turning it into an argument for destroying progress in civil rights by

claiming we engage in "WHITE DISCRIMINATION" via DEI efforts is the most appalling thing I've seen hit mainstream ideology in this country. It is steeped in Stephen Miller, et al NAZI/FASCIST/WHITE SUPREMACIST strategy.

I hope the poster (and others) will consider this.

[hlthe2b]

2. Hardly!... Read the Racist history behind the "compromise" Founders applied to create Electoral College

The Electoral College’s Racist Origins
--The Brennan Center for Justice
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins



This piece was originally published by the Atlantic.

--snip--

Commentators today tend to downplay the extent to which race and slavery contributed to the Framers’ creation of the Electoral College, in effect whitewashing history: Of the considerations that factored into the Framers’ calculus, race and slavery were perhaps the foremost.

Of course, the Framers had a number of other reasons to engineer the Electoral College. Fearful that the president might fall victim to a host of civic vices—that he could become susceptible to corruption or cronyism, sow disunity, or exercise overreach—the men sought to constrain executive power consistent with constitutional principles such as federalism and checks and balances. The delegates to the Philadelphia convention had scant conception of the American presidency—the duties, powers, and limits of the office. But they did have a handful of ideas about the method for selecting the chief executive. When the idea of a popular vote was raised, they griped openly that it could result in too much democracy. With few objections, they quickly dispensed with the notion that the people might choose their leader.

But delegates from the slaveholding South had another rationale for opposing the direct election method, and they had no qualms about articulating it: Doing so would be to their disadvantage. Even James Madison, who professed a theoretical commitment to popular democracy, succumbed to the realities of the situation. The future president acknowledged that “the people at large was in his opinion the fittest” to select the chief executive. And yet, in the same breath, he captured the sentiment of the South in the most “diplomatic” terms:

“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”

Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.

--worth reading the full piece at the link above.

[TheKentuckian]

4. More like the polar opposite.

No diversity, the same folks in charge, and exclusion seem to be the idea.

[WarGamer]

5. that was the deal to get the States together.

[Think. Again.]

6. Yes, it's no longer relevant, helpful or appropriate...

...and now only does the opposite of it's intended purpose.

It needs to be stricken as obsolete and currently moot.

[WarGamer]

8. Just come up with a Constitutional Amendment... no prob

[Think. Again.]

10. Or keep working toward the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Either one.

[WarGamer]

11. It might not even be constitutional.

If it ever was implemented it'd have to make it past SCOTUS.

[Think. Again.]

12. Yes, everything has to make it past scotus.

[Wounded Bear]

7. Actually, it is the original gerrymander along with the Senate...nt

[rsdsharp]

9. How do they have "'equal' power?"

Montana has 4 electoral votes. North and South Dakota have 3 each. California, for example, has 54; New York has 28.

Each state has electoral votes equal to their total number of Representatives and Senators.

[Shermann]

13. This pleases Wyoming!

The state with the highest ratio of electoral college votes to population is Wyoming.

[Bettie]

15. So, their number of EC votes is still not even marginally proportional

CA: Population: 38,965,193, EVs 54, so each EV represents about 740,096 people.

ND: 783,926, 3 EVs. 261,309 people per EV.

New York: 19,571,216, 28 EV. That's 698972 people per EV

Iowa: 3,207,004, 6 EV. That's 534,500 people per EV

Wyoming: 584,057, 3 Ev. That's 194,685 people per EV.

The representation should be roughly equal, people vote, land doesn't.

[Gore1FL]

14. No. It is political welfare for unpopular ideas. nt

[pecosbob]

16. The framers were terrified of tyranny of the masses...what we now call Democracy