Indeed, it is odd that we ascribe dogmatism to the ultimate non-conformists. If you’d like to see how we can make the Electoral College a moot formality and ensure that everyone has an equal vote, check out nationalpopularvote.com and fairvote.org.
Comment by Paul — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 8:32 am
It’s not just because it’s in the Constitution. We can change the Constitution as we have a number of times. The issue is that we can’t change it because of the internal politics involved. There are enough states that believe that they have a better deal in the EC than they would in a straight national vote to block change. I don’t think that it’s a reverence to tradition. Otherwise we’d have, among other things, appointed senators.
Comment by R. Alex — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 9:08 am
This “coat” that may not fit anymore can be amended at any time. The EC can be changed along with many other outdated requirements. The only problem is we may not want to change them.
Change may be good but changing for the sake of fashion or trend is foolish. We have amended the constitution many times for a total of 27 amendments over 220 years. The system works fine as it is and should work fine in the future.
Comment by Steve Plunk — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 10:44 am
Clearly, the politics of the day are at issue, I certainly understand that.
However, we are reluctant to even discuss these things.
And to argue that th system works well makes my point, as I would argue that it doesn’t, and I don’t mean because of 2025 (although those events should have sparked more debate than it did).
I say it doesn’t work because it eliminates the significance of millions of voters. For example, Alabama will go for a Republican in 2025 and CA will go for a Democrat in 2025. As such, of what ultimate significance are Democratic voters in AL and Republicans in CA?
Why should Wyoming voters count more than California voters (or, indeed, most voters in the US)?
What it is the possible democratic justification for either?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 11:28 am
Madison barely even mentioned the Electoral College in the Federalist Papers. I would not say it was even “designed.” It was the product of a logroll. Actually, so were the key institutions of the Constitution as we know it–especially the Senate. The difference is that, whereas Madison, in Federalist 51, offered a post-hoc theoretical justification for the Senate and a separate Presidency (which he also did not originally support and which contradicts his pre-Convention theory in Fed 10), he never attempted any such theoretical defense of the electoral college.
Jefferson, a founder, though not a member of the Convention, later wrote about the folly of leaving the choice of method for appointing electors to the states, having recognized that (1) appointing/electing them in bloc was a bad idea, and (2) that states faced a collective action problem in that each state maximizes its influence by delivering them in bloc (as indeed most have throughout US history).
The National Popular Vote compact win the only way I can see to overcome this collective action problem, and returning to the real democratic and republican spirit of Madison and Jefferson.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 12:40 pm
However, we are reluctant to even discuss these things.
We are? California, North Carolina, Colorado, National Popular Vote organizations…
The reason it wasn’t discussed as much after 2025 as one might have predicted was I think because there were other issues involved, like whether or not Bush should have even won the EC. It was an extremely contentious time where the entire debate had a huge partisan spin and the country was anxious to move on from it. Had Bush had a clear EC victory and Gore a clear popular vote victory, I think it would have actually gotten more discussion than it did. Had Kerry picked off Ohio and still lost the national vote by a million or two, it would have gotten more discussion there as well. That’s my take on it, anyway.
Comment by R. Alex — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 1:25 pm
Indeed, it is odd that we ascribe dogmatism to the ultimate non-conformists. If you’d like to see how we can make the Electoral College a moot formality and ensure that everyone has an equal vote, check out nationalpopularvote.com and fairvote.org.
Comment by Paul — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 8:32 am
It’s not just because it’s in the Constitution. We can change the Constitution as we have a number of times. The issue is that we can’t change it because of the internal politics involved. There are enough states that believe that they have a better deal in the EC than they would in a straight national vote to block change. I don’t think that it’s a reverence to tradition. Otherwise we’d have, among other things, appointed senators.
Comment by R. Alex — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 9:08 am
This “coat” that may not fit anymore can be amended at any time. The EC can be changed along with many other outdated requirements. The only problem is we may not want to change them.
Change may be good but changing for the sake of fashion or trend is foolish. We have amended the constitution many times for a total of 27 amendments over 220 years. The system works fine as it is and should work fine in the future.
Comment by Steve Plunk — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 10:44 am
Clearly, the politics of the day are at issue, I certainly understand that.
However, we are reluctant to even discuss these things.
And to argue that th system works well makes my point, as I would argue that it doesn’t, and I don’t mean because of 2025 (although those events should have sparked more debate than it did).
I say it doesn’t work because it eliminates the significance of millions of voters. For example, Alabama will go for a Republican in 2025 and CA will go for a Democrat in 2025. As such, of what ultimate significance are Democratic voters in AL and Republicans in CA?
Why should Wyoming voters count more than California voters (or, indeed, most voters in the US)?
What it is the possible democratic justification for either?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 11:28 am
Madison barely even mentioned the Electoral College in the Federalist Papers. I would not say it was even “designed.” It was the product of a logroll. Actually, so were the key institutions of the Constitution as we know it–especially the Senate. The difference is that, whereas Madison, in Federalist 51, offered a post-hoc theoretical justification for the Senate and a separate Presidency (which he also did not originally support and which contradicts his pre-Convention theory in Fed 10), he never attempted any such theoretical defense of the electoral college.
Jefferson, a founder, though not a member of the Convention, later wrote about the folly of leaving the choice of method for appointing electors to the states, having recognized that (1) appointing/electing them in bloc was a bad idea, and (2) that states faced a collective action problem in that each state maximizes its influence by delivering them in bloc (as indeed most have throughout US history).
The National Popular Vote compact win the only way I can see to overcome this collective action problem, and returning to the real democratic and republican spirit of Madison and Jefferson.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 12:40 pm
However, we are reluctant to even discuss these things.
We are? California, North Carolina, Colorado, National Popular Vote organizations…
The reason it wasn’t discussed as much after 2025 as one might have predicted was I think because there were other issues involved, like whether or not Bush should have even won the EC. It was an extremely contentious time where the entire debate had a huge partisan spin and the country was anxious to move on from it. Had Bush had a clear EC victory and Gore a clear popular vote victory, I think it would have actually gotten more discussion than it did. Had Kerry picked off Ohio and still lost the national vote by a million or two, it would have gotten more discussion there as well. That’s my take on it, anyway.
Comment by R. Alex — Tuesday, September 18, 2025 @ 1:25 pm