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)
-
-
There's a number of historical problems with the "Electoral College was created to protect slavery" narrative. Left-wing historian Sean Wilentz looks at one of those, specifically, how the Constitutional Convention actually voted.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html …
Show this thread -
Worth noting as well: Madison, who raised the slavery issue at the Convention after authoring the original Virginia Plan (under which Congress elected POTUS) was later willing to compromise on popular election bc he was optimistic about growth of the southern electorate.pic.twitter.com/zIwxKq6tuN
Show this thread -
A fair amount of the slavery-at-the-Constitutional-Convention stuff also relies on an ahistorical projection of the post-1830 dynamics backward onto the men of the 1780s. Neither slavery's opponents nor its defenders were as zealous at the time, nor as assured of the future.
Show this thread -
The Founding generation took concrete steps against slavery & was optimistic about its long-term abolition, but there were still northern slave states in 1787 (NY, NJ), & northern opinion was still a long ways from trying to ban slavery in the South.
Show this thread -
The dismal fate of Ben Franklin's anti-slavery petition to Congress in 1790 shows how far from mainstream it was, at the time, to use federal power to ban slavery in states where it existed, rather than rely on state bans & federal territorial bans. http://www.ushistory.org/documents/antislavery.htm …
Show this thread -
That history may seem irrelevant to what happened at Philadelphia in 1787, but it's not. The context of where elite opinion stood on slavery in 1787 informs the realistic scope of what the delegates' hopes & fears were.
Show this thread -
Me
@NRO: What the Electoral College Saves Us From https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/what-the-electoral-college-saves-us-from/ …pic.twitter.com/OkR9Z5IIMl
Show this thread -
Another example I didn't have room for: 1888. The ex-Confederate states (not very ex, in 1888) voted 61-37 for Cleveland. Rest of the country went 50-46 for Harrison. Cleveland won only 1 state (CT) that wasn't a slave state in 1860. Cleveland won pop. vote by 0.83% & lost.
Show this thread -
Should Cleveland have won that election? He lost the six largest states. His regional appeal was so narrow, as an incumbent POTUS, he couldn't even win the state where he'd been Governor 4 years before & that had made him POTUS.
Show this thread -
Cleveland carried the national popular vote, 48.6% to 47.8%, solely b/c he won Texas by 41 pts. He won 82% in SC, 70+% in MS, LA, GA. Did that make him a more legitimate representative of a majority of the voters than Benjamin Harrison, who won only 1 state (VT) with > 58%?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.