In reality, of course, the compromises that created the Electoral College, the Senate, and the House were not independent of each other. Large vs small states, free vs slave states, elite vs popular democracy, all were different fault lines. Everybody made concessions.
-
Show this thread
-
Roger Sherman of Connecticut was one of the vocal opponents of direct national popular election of the president. This sort of pseudo-history just assumes this was because Connecticut was a Southern slave state. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
6 replies 10 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
In the long run, of course, it was the Electoral College that enabled a not-overwhelming majority in the North to act collectively to elect Abe Lincoln. Lincoln got 54% of the vote in states he won, 26.3% in Douglas states, but 0.9% in Breckenridge states, 0.7% in Bell states.
3 replies 6 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
True, Lincoln won a popular plurality, and 1860 is not really the best case for national acceptance of an election result. But the point is that the Electoral College works *against* a united regional bloc like the antebellum South that has fallen out of the national mainstream.
2 replies 7 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Well into the 20th century, states in the South voted in far greater lockstep than elsewhere. FDR in 1944 won 93.6% of the vote in Mississippi, for example. But that counted no more than Dewey winning 50-49 in Ohio & Wisconsin. That's good!
2 replies 10 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Our American system *as a whole* -not just by design by by experience- forces the patient building of broad, diverse political coalitions over time to effect significant change. If the system is flawed, it's when the process is overrun by novel short cuts (eg administrative fiat)
3 replies 15 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
If you think that an American government elected by national popular majority would have abolished slavery before 1860, you probably have not read much American history from before 1860. The same is largely true of Jim Crow.
1 reply 13 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
Let us also recall that a candidate who gets only an Electoral College plurality means a president selected by the House. Happened once (1824) & went badly. We've had a *lot* of popular vote pluralities. Only in 1876 did the loser (maybe) win a popular majority.
1 reply 6 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
Had the Founders selected presidents by national popular vote, they'd almost certainly still have had the House choose when there's a plurality. Under that system, W wins in 2000, Trump in 2016. And stopping W & Trump is 100% of the point of this argument.
8 replies 24 retweets 71 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Also not the whole house. Each state delegation gets one vote. 26 wins.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.