"THE PROSLAVERY ORIGINS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, by Paul Finkelman"

[MovingForward2020]

If people gain awareness that the Electoral College was not created for some good or worthwhile purpose, perhaps it will be easier for them to accept that it does not serve a good or worthwhile purpose today. I'm just spreading the word. The first four paragraphs of this article, the maximum allowed, are quoted below. Link to article: http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The%20Proslavery%20Origins%20of%20the%20Electoral%20College.pdf

"THE PROSLAVERY ORIGINS OF THEELECTORAL COLLEGE
Paul Finkelman*

INTRODUCTION

How did the United States come up with such a crazy way to
elect a president? The electoral college system seems to make no
sense. It is quite undemocratic. The tiny states have
proportionally more power then the larger states. In addition, the
winner-take-all process makes voting seem meaningless in many
states.1 As the 2000 election demonstrated, having more popular
votes than your opponent does not guarantee that the candidate
will win the election. This only reconfirmed what the nation
learned in 1824,2 1888,3 1876,4 and probably 1800.5

The system seems to be unique in the United States—
applying only to the presidential election—and unique to the
United States. I know of no western or industrialized democracy
that uses such a system. As far as I know, the presidency is the
only elected office in the United States in which the person with
the most votes in the final election does not necessarily win.6 In
every state, county, and local election, in all elections for members
of the House of Representatives and the Senate the person with
the most votes in the final election wins.7

How did we get such a system? The classic explanations,
found in various textbooks and political science treatises, focus on
the process argument, federalism, and the view that the framers
were skeptical of the people voting.

The electoral college is of course based in part on the three-fifths
clause. Thus there is an immediate connection between slavery and
the electoral college. At first glance this might seem coincidental,
and most textbooks, in fact, offer other explanations
for the creation of the electoral college.8 The few that notice
slavery mention it only in passing, and then ignore it, perhaps
because an extended investigation of slavery and the electoral
college would undermine traditional political science categories.
The Electoral College Primer, for example, notes in passing that
the one reason for the electoral college was “the loss in relative
influence of the South because of its large nonvoting slave
population.”9 The authors of this book never again mention the
subject, and do not include the word slavery in their index.
Similarly, Robert M. Hardaway understands that slaves were
counted for purposes of representation in the House,10 but does
not consider how slavery affected the decision to create an
electoral college. This lack of discussion of slavery by scholars of
the electoral college is surprising, because the records of the
Convention show that in fact the connection between slavery and
the college was deliberate, and very much on the minds of many
delegates, including James Madison. Before turning to a more
thorough examination the role of slavery in the creation of the
electoral college, it is necessary to first consider the more common
explanations for this system of electing presidents."

[heaven05]

1. I have seen people

trying to soft pedal this racist based system of electing someone who probably believes deep down in his racist, fascist heart along with his "soft and hard" racist base in the 3/5 of a person USA belief concerning AA people in general. People are not even beginning to understand how serious the status of decent people and PoC in the USA is.

[mopinko]

2. one person one vote. all else is tyranny.

[brooklynite]

3. These stores are nice, but pointless...

...the people at a Democratic/liberal blog site aren't the people you'll need to convince to eliminate the EC, and arguing that the EC is "proslavery" isn't likely to change a lot of minds in the red states you'll need to swing.

[MovingForward2020]

4. That's why it's important to spread the knowledge of its origins.

Once people, and this includes Democrats and liberals, have a better understanding of why it was created in the first place, it becomes easier to refute the bogus arguments advanced in support of it. Also, I've encountered plenty of Democrats and liberals who have argued in favor of the Electoral College, not understanding its original purpose. At least some of them actually believe, incorrectly, that it was established to prevent the election of "populist demagogues".

[brooklynite]

5. The entire US Constitution had "Proslavery origns"; should we get rid of all of it?

What the EC's origins are are irrelevent. People in small States feel that it has benefits in today's world. You'll have to convince them on that basis.

[MovingForward2020]

11. Parts did (and some of those have been repealed), and other parts had nothing to do with slavery.

The origins of the EC are certainly relevant, because quite a few people argue for it based upon their mistaken understanding of its original purpose. This information about its origins is part of what is needed to convince them. Also, there are many people in small states, and in larger states as well, who feel that their vote doesn't count, because of the winner-take-all system that exists in the vast majority of states.

[libtodeath]

8. I am not reaching out to racists.

[brooklynite]

9. No all Red-State voters are racists.

How do you propose to go about eliminating the EC, besides talking to people who already agree with you?

[libtodeath]

10. By being progressive and showing those that dont vote all the good the Democratic party can give to

them.

[X_Digger]

6. Is this the new 'thing' now? Don't like something, it's obviously 'pro-slavery'!

National anthem? Pro-slavery!
Second amendment? Pro-slavery!
Bananas? Pro-slavery!

What a silly out of date article. The United STATES was formed as a federation of discrete political bodies (states). Hence two bodies of legislature- one proportional to the population, one with state equality. You'll see this pattern repeated frequently in the debates of the constitutional convention, as well as in the writings of the prominent thinkers of the time. The electoral college echoes this sentiment.

We never were a direct democracy, we're a republic. By design.

[MovingForward2020]

12. The article is factual.

The evidence is included in the article, for those who take the time to read it. Obviously, it won't convince someone who holds anti-democratic views.

[X_Digger]

13. No, the 'evidence' is cherry picked and elided. Quotes taken out of context do not 'evidence' make.

I read the whole thing-- about 10 years ago the first time.

Or did you just now find it and think it's new??

[MovingForward2020]

15. No, the evidence is sound, and the case is solid.

In spite of your claims to the contrary. The good news is that people can read it and decide for themselves.

[X_Digger]

16. If you really want to know, there are a couple good books published on the convention.

Ones with a lot more than select quotes cherry-picked to support an asinine proposition.

I'd recommend Thornton Anderson's "The Convention of 1787 and the First Congress", or "Constitutional Journal: A Correspondent's Report from the Convention of 1787", Jeffrey St. John.

What, do you think that someone's supposed to read a 13 page word doc and form an opinion rather than doing their own research?

Silly rabbit, propaganda is for russians.

[MovingForward2020]

17. It's always good to go to the original sources, which Finkelman does.

Finkelman's article, which is certainly not propaganda, is quite valuable to any serious attempt to research the issue. I encourage people to read alternative viewpoints, as well. Your "silly rabbit" comment is pretty silly, by the way. But carry on...

[X_Digger]

18. Lol, haven't actually done your own research have you?

Tell me, what do you think of Madison's statement about the ability of people to govern themselves?

What do you think Mason's second speech was about, really?

People who are not familiar with a subject are easily swayed by "alternative viewpoints"-- they don't know any better.



Keep it up. You're not getting anywhere, but it's funny watching you flail.

[MovingForward2020]

19. It doesn't seem that you know good research when you see it.

Sorry, son, but I'm not in school here. And keep kicking my thread up. I appreciate it.

[X_Digger]

20. I know good research when I see it. Dear, this tripe ain't it. n/t

[MovingForward2020]

21. It's good research that you can't refute.

GL to you.

[X_Digger]

22. 'Refute' a quote taken out of context? Lol, that's rich. Free clue: the two Q's I asked..

.. will clue you in, should you actually want to.. you know, do your own fucking research. I don't feel like schooling you tonight.

Mason.. and Madison.

[MovingForward2020]

23. Your misrepresentation of good research doesn't diminish its value.

Perhaps you should do some real research for a change, instead of feebly trying to dismiss it. And, no, there's no chance that you could ever school me. You chose the questions for your assignment, and it's your job to answer them.

[Yupster]

24. I'm with Digger on this one

I read it. It was interesting, but it read like a thesis paper. I'd give it a good grade too.

In a thesis paper, you state your thesis and then prove it. You don't argue against your own thesis. You leave that for others to do.

Here's the part he doesn't include.

The founders didn't even assume every state would have a popular vote for President. That's why they put in the Constitution that electors would be chosen by whatever means the legislature decides. The original electoral college idea is actually pretty interesting. Each state legislature chooses electors who are not federal office-holders. You pick learned men in your communities. Then those men look around the nation and pick two men that they think would make good Presidents. One of them has to be from a state other than their own (sort of but that's a whole different discussion).

If someone gets a majority of electoral votes (unlikely) they win. If no one gets a majority of electoral votes (more likely) the House of Representatives chooses the President of the top three vote getters.

What they didn't get was the quick establishment of political parties. Once political parties were established you didn't have 15 guys getting electoral votes and the original system didn't make as much sense anymore.

South Carolina was the last state to allow a popular vote for President. That was in 1868. It was a kinda fishy result as supposedly the men of South Carolina voted for US Grant.

As far as the 3/5 th compromise, it was made to apportion seats in the congress, not the electoral college.

Now the electoral college numbers are based on number of congressmen, so if you want to say therefore since the electoral college is based on congress, then therefore the electoral college is based on the 3/5 compromise, you could say anything congress has done over the last 200 years is based on the 3/5 compromise.

This was an interesting paper, but it wasn't a balanced paper, nor did it attempt to be.

Just my opinion as an old history teacher and textbook author.

[MovingForward2020]

25. Well, it's a paper from a constitutional scholar, a professor of law.

Your observations are fine, but not really an argument against the case that he makes. Anyway, this is more of an established, if not well-known, view than it once was. Here's a good article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

I've quoted the first four paragraphs: "Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars

BY KAMALA KELKAR November 6, 2016 at 3:57 PM EST | Updated: Nov 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

During that same speech on Thursday, July 19, Madison instead proposed a prototype for the same Electoral College system the country uses today. Each state has a number of electoral votes roughly proportioned to population and the candidate who wins the majority of votes wins the election.

Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Such anomalies and other criticisms have pushed 10 Democratic states to enroll in a popular vote system. And while there are many grievances about the Electoral College, one that’s rarely addressed is one dug up by an academic of the Constitution: that it was created to protect slavery, planting the roots of a system that’s still oppressive today.

“It’s embarrassing,” said Paul Finkelman, visiting law professor at University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I think if most Americans knew what the origins of the Electoral College is, they would be disgusted.”

[MovingForward2020]

27. A point you made.

"Now the electoral college numbers are based on number of congressmen, so if you want to say therefore since the electoral college is based on congress, then therefore the electoral college is based on the 3/5 compromise,"

Yes, I would say this. It's also necessary to consider the fact that the number of Electors are based upon the number of Senators (2 for each state) plus the number of Representatives (apportioned according to population) for each State. This gave additional electoral power to those states with smaller voting populations, and therefore, to the slave states.

[MovingForward2020]

29. One more point.

"The founders didn't even assume every state would have a popular vote for President. That's why they put in the Constitution that electors would be chosen by whatever means the legislature decides." - Yes, in the beginning, it's true that many states did choose the Electors through their state legislatures. However, since the state legislators, who were elected, were supposedly representative of their constituents, this doesn't really serve as an objection to Finkelman's case.

[frankieallen]

26. Thank you, +1000

[Me.]

30. I Differ

Slavery goes to the very heart of the formation of our country and the tinkering done to keep it together. In the beginning, to keep the Continental Congress moving forward the leaders were always bending over backwards to appease the southerners. If they hadn't NYC would still be the Capitol. And while I didn't see it in the OP (might've missed it) they instituted the 3/5 rule for slaves so the populations (thereby votes) of the south would be more equal to those of the north. The inequality continues today in our government except for the House which is why a small state, say Wyoming, has the same number of senators as California. Majority does not rule in this country and the desire/need for slavery was the direct cause of this discrepancy.

As to whether we were intended to be a republic or democracy and which we actually are is still largely debated.

[X_Digger]

32. Majority does not rule because it was never intended to. Derp.

We are a representative republic. Our founders were quite aware of the problems surrounding mob rule (*cough* excuse me, direct democracy).

There's no debating, if you'll read ANY of, let's say.. enlightenment philosophers, the federalist papers, the constitution, the convention debates, early court cases, the personal writings and letters of the founders-- damn near anything from that time frame.

There might be doubt in *your* mind, but that's likely because you haven't done your research.

[Me.]

33. We'll Have to Agree To Disagree

No need to get pompous

[X_Digger]

34. Yours is a position from ignorance. That's like saying, "Well, scientists don't know EVERYTHING.."..

to justify climate change denial.

If you don't want to do your own research, there's a couple of book on similar subjects that will enlighten you mentioned upthread.

[Me.]

35. As I Said

[smirkymonkey]

7. K&R

[Duppers]

14. K & R

[Calista241]

28. Be careful what you wish for with changes to the electoral college

For better or worse, our country is divided up into states. Ignoring states in favor of an all out popular vote scheme could be seen as impinging on states rights.

And i don't know why people are complaining so much. It's not like this system is going to change significantly. The small states will NEVER go for an amendment to change this.

If you want to see change, splitting California into multiple states has more of a chance at actually happening. This will do a couple things, it would give the Dems a few more Senate seats, and split our electoral college votes up into different states (and likely changing the electoral math in our favor).

[MovingForward2020]

31. Eliminating the Electoral College will do no harm to the Republic, and could promote unity.

The EC actually contributes to the divisiveness in this country, especially when the loser in the EC wins the popular vote convincingly.

"The small states will NEVER go for an amendment to change this."

I agree that they won't at this point in time. However, in time that may change. The Electoral College could still be rendered irrelevant, however, if enough states join this compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[mountain grammy]

36. I think this is a splendid idea.

I've read about it before.