What we really need is some implementing legislation to put teeth in the two Emoluments Clauses that we have. The Founders never imagined that we'd need that, because they never imagined that we'd ever elect a Trump.
What we really need is some implementing legislation to put teeth in the two Emoluments Clauses that we have. The Founders never imagined that we'd need that, because they never imagined that we'd ever elect a Trump.
The Electoral College did not turn out as the Founders intended, true, but in fairness to them, they also never anticipated that the Electoral College would be subverted by the Prohibitionists in the Reapportionment Act of 1929 when, in order to permanently limit the influence of populous (and probably more anti-Prohibition) states by capping the number of seats in the House of Representatives, they hit the Electoral College with the same distortion. Take the cap off the House, and we do a lot to fix both, with no constitutional amendment required.
That's an excellent observation; I never thought about that. I keep meaning to sit down with some election datasets and experiment with different reforms to see if anything might have made a difference in certain close elections.
For example, as a *very* rough (but easily calculated) approximation of what you're talking about, we can imagine what would happen if we just removed the +2 spotting of electors each state gets because of the Senate (which would require a Constitutional amendment). While this would not have changed the outcome of the 2016 election, it would have altered the 2000 election, giving Al Gore a 225-211 Electoral College victory (and maybe then, who knows, we never get Trump 2016).
I keep planning on running some Excel sheets doing the same thing. My screen name here is my email address -- if you come up with anything please share, and I'll do the same.
I'm a whole lot less concerned about the two vote Senate spot, which was part of the Founders' basic federalism design, than I am with the effect of the 435 ceiling on an election like 2016. If the population of one House district were defined as always equal to the population of the least populous state, instead of 55 electoral votes in 2016, California would have had over 80. Now, Texas and Florida would also had had more, but so would've Illinois and New York.
It was never part of the Founders' plan for the Electoral Vote to diverge so far from the popular vote. It would have been particularly anathema to them that a state could LOSE House members and Electors simply because, although it had increased in population since the last Census, it had increased more slowly than other states. But we've come to accept that as a given since 1929.
Unfortunately the Founders thought that the EC would be educated, informed, honorable men. They were incredibly naive on that point. Thought as a nation, we have been extremely lucky.
There's a certain irony here in that, generally speaking, the Founders designed our system with full acknowledgement of human flaws, and to some extent, relying on them. For example, they expected the tendency toward institutional self-interest to prevent Congress and the Executive from getting too cozy. They were naive in hoping that political parties would not become strong enough institutions on their own to eclipse the formal institutions of government.
However, you're correct that in the end, they expected that honorable men committed to our ideals would make the right decisions on important matters тАУ given an appropriately deliberate forum which would cool the passions of the masses. This, of course, is one of the fundamental principles of republican government. And in this case, they decided to further insulate the Executive from Congress by convening a separate body to decide, rather than having Congress decide as in a parliamentary system.
And here is where they made a crucial mistake: they left the process and criteria for choosing electors entirely to each state. And while practical and logistic concerns prevent our usual congressional representatives from being explicitly compelled by their state to vote one way or another on legislation, no such concerns exist when a body is being assembled upon demand explicitly for the purpose of deciding one question. The only guardrail left is at that point is lack of intra-party cohesion from state to state. Which you had, to some degree, before the age of instantaneous global mass communication.
What we really need is some implementing legislation to put teeth in the two Emoluments Clauses that we have. The Founders never imagined that we'd need that, because they never imagined that we'd ever elect a Trump.
Now we know.
Of course, the Electoral College will prevent that!
The Electoral College did not turn out as the Founders intended, true, but in fairness to them, they also never anticipated that the Electoral College would be subverted by the Prohibitionists in the Reapportionment Act of 1929 when, in order to permanently limit the influence of populous (and probably more anti-Prohibition) states by capping the number of seats in the House of Representatives, they hit the Electoral College with the same distortion. Take the cap off the House, and we do a lot to fix both, with no constitutional amendment required.
That's an excellent observation; I never thought about that. I keep meaning to sit down with some election datasets and experiment with different reforms to see if anything might have made a difference in certain close elections.
For example, as a *very* rough (but easily calculated) approximation of what you're talking about, we can imagine what would happen if we just removed the +2 spotting of electors each state gets because of the Senate (which would require a Constitutional amendment). While this would not have changed the outcome of the 2016 election, it would have altered the 2000 election, giving Al Gore a 225-211 Electoral College victory (and maybe then, who knows, we never get Trump 2016).
I keep planning on running some Excel sheets doing the same thing. My screen name here is my email address -- if you come up with anything please share, and I'll do the same.
I'm a whole lot less concerned about the two vote Senate spot, which was part of the Founders' basic federalism design, than I am with the effect of the 435 ceiling on an election like 2016. If the population of one House district were defined as always equal to the population of the least populous state, instead of 55 electoral votes in 2016, California would have had over 80. Now, Texas and Florida would also had had more, but so would've Illinois and New York.
It was never part of the Founders' plan for the Electoral Vote to diverge so far from the popular vote. It would have been particularly anathema to them that a state could LOSE House members and Electors simply because, although it had increased in population since the last Census, it had increased more slowly than other states. But we've come to accept that as a given since 1929.
Your last sentence, completely agree.
Unfortunately the Founders thought that the EC would be educated, informed, honorable men. They were incredibly naive on that point. Thought as a nation, we have been extremely lucky.
There's a certain irony here in that, generally speaking, the Founders designed our system with full acknowledgement of human flaws, and to some extent, relying on them. For example, they expected the tendency toward institutional self-interest to prevent Congress and the Executive from getting too cozy. They were naive in hoping that political parties would not become strong enough institutions on their own to eclipse the formal institutions of government.
However, you're correct that in the end, they expected that honorable men committed to our ideals would make the right decisions on important matters тАУ given an appropriately deliberate forum which would cool the passions of the masses. This, of course, is one of the fundamental principles of republican government. And in this case, they decided to further insulate the Executive from Congress by convening a separate body to decide, rather than having Congress decide as in a parliamentary system.
And here is where they made a crucial mistake: they left the process and criteria for choosing electors entirely to each state. And while practical and logistic concerns prevent our usual congressional representatives from being explicitly compelled by their state to vote one way or another on legislation, no such concerns exist when a body is being assembled upon demand explicitly for the purpose of deciding one question. The only guardrail left is at that point is lack of intra-party cohesion from state to state. Which you had, to some degree, before the age of instantaneous global mass communication.
And so here we are. ЁЯШТ