Now that everybody has discovered that we have an Electoral College and that the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, let's take a quick look at why we have what on the surface appears to be a quirky method of choosing our executive head.

We all remember the Great Compromise, right? That was when at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 two plans of representation were proposed, each with a legitimate argument in favor of it. Virginia, the most populous state, naturally thought a legislature in which states were represented by population was fair. After all, why should the clear majority of the people be effectively thwarted by a small state? The New Jersey delegates, needless to say, saw it differently. Each state should be represented equally. After all, why should a small state be rendered irrelevant by a domineering large state?

So, what to do? A Connecticut delegate, Roger Sherman, seeing the justice of both positions, proposed that both could be done. He wasn't the first to conceive of the idea, but he did manage to persuade the Constitutional Convention to buy into the idea. Thus was born a bicameral (two house) legislature in which there would be a House of Representatives in which states would be represented by population, and a Senate in which states would be represented equally. For a bill to become law requires the approval of both houses.

The Electoral College is an extension of the Great Compromise. As James Madison put it in Federalist # 39, "The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society." This is why each state has a number of electors determined by a simple formula: # of representatives + # of senators = # of electors. This allows for a larger voice for the more populous states, but also prevents the less populous states from being rendered voiceless in choosing a president.

But why a group of electors? Alexander Hamilton put it this way in Federalist # 68, "They [the delegates to the Convention] have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment." In the context of hampering a foreign power from influencing our elections (The Russians! The Russians!), the electors are to be temporarily assigned the task of choosing the president and going home. That they are not in public office nor a permanent institution means they are less likely to be subject to corrupting influences.

In one of my Government classes, we discussed hopeful Oregonians wanting to secede from the Union and perhaps join with California, Washington, and British Columbia to form the new country of Cascadia (apparently they presume Canadians will have the same fervor for secession), and henceforth choose their president strictly by popular vote. One of my students, a freshman, pointed out that if they did, California would dominate all the presidential elections making the votes of the other regions irrelevant. Precisely.

This is why I cringe every time some kerflufflehead drones on about how we are a Democracy. A Democracy has been best described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The Founders were far more brilliant than our current populace gives them credit for. That is, only if you admire freedom loving, liberty seeking, believers in the individual and that the citizens rule over the government not the other way around.

"Popular vote" is just another way of saying "California."

Thank you comrade al-Blogunov for this brilliant contribution. The evil inequality-producing machinations of the USA have now been exposed even more clearly!

I quote:
"partly as unequal members of the same society"

Taken out of context (as we progressives are wont to do) this indicates that your founding fathers (Goregh al-Washingtoni, Ben-Amin Franqu'lin and others) were already formulating the Islamomarxist truths a long time ago!

Minitrue wrote:Thank you comrade al-Blogunov for this brilliant contribution. The evil inequality-producing machinations of the USA have now been exposed even more clearly!

I quote:
"partly as unequal members of the same society"

Taken out of context (as we progressives are wont to do) this indicates that your founding fathers (Goregh al-Washingtoni, Ben-Amin Franqu'lin and others) were already formulating the Islamomarxist truths a long time ago!

Minitrue wrote:... this indicates that your founding fathers ([highlight=#ffff00]Goregh al-Washingtoni, Ben-Amin Franqu'lin and others[/highlight]) were already formulating the Islamomarxist truths a long time ago!

Komissar al-Blogunov wrote:... how much Islam and Marxism influenced our Founders (let's be careful about assuming gender) ...

Fascinating!

So, the Russkies, ages ago, slipped their agents Yury Washingtonov, Bendzhamin Yossayahovich Franklinskiy et al. into the Colonies as "Founding Fathers" (i. e. Founders) and presciently CGI-holographed inside each of them a larva of a hard-Islamic persona ‒ those larvae designed to eclose approx. 250 years later from their Russian hosts as full blown Islamists (al-Washingtoni, Franqu'lin et al.)!

Verily, begs for a Nobel Prize 2017 in Advanced Holographentomology and Russarabo Linguistics.


(add.)
Donations asked to support Comrade Minitrue's likely heat-damaged Memory Hole(s)!

Genosse Dummkopf wrote:

Minitrue wrote:... this indicates that your founding fathers ([highlight=#ffff00]Goregh al-Washingtoni, Ben-Amin Franqu'lin and others[/highlight]) were already formulating the Islamomarxist truths a long time ago!

Komissar al-Blogunov wrote:... how much Islam and Marxism influenced our Founders (let's be careful about assuming gender) ...

Fascinating!

So, the Russkies, ages ago, slipped their agents Yury Washingtonov, Bendzhamin Yossayahovich Franklinskiy et al. into the Colonies as "Founding Fathers" (i. e. Founders) and presciently CGI-holographed inside each of them a larva of a hard-Islamic persona ‒ those larvae designed to eclose approx. 250 years later from their Russian hosts as full blown Islamists (al-Washingtoni, Franqu'lin et al.)!

Verily, begs for a Nobel Prize 2017 in Advanced Holographentomology and Russarabo Linguistics.


(add.)
Donations asked to support Comrade Minitrue's likely heat-damaged Memory Hole(s)!

Major Ursa Vitnopants wrote:This is why I cringe every time some kerflufflehead drones on about how we are a Democracy.

It all depends on what the meaning of 'we' is, Comrade.

The States are democracies. The Federation of States is not.

Komissar al-Blogunov wrote:

Most of our younger citizens just haven't been taught anything in the way of government or history to give government a context.

As you say, they are not 'taught' in any manner that makes the subject interesting or worth retaining. They are given dry dates and semi-facts about dead people, events, and places, and expected to regurgitate it on a test.

As a 'native Oregonian' (since 1965), back when we wanted to cede Portland to Washington State to excise what many in the state looked at as a cancer, I had the fortune to receive a fairly decent public-school education. I made it through junior-high before they became middle-schools, and before the 'at least you tried' mentality grasped the district in the multicultural-globalist wave of 'education reform'...but I digress.

I had a series of teachers who made learning fun and exciting. It was a challenge and the classes were such that if you didn't keep up, you did it again. The pace wasn't set by the slowest learner in the class, and usually other students in the class volunteered their time to help the slower learners without even being asked...again, I digress.

The point was supposed to be that learning history is only effective when taught in such a way as to spark the interest of the student. Our classes had re-enactments, plays, field trips, and other than 'read the book' lessons. Many of my classmates were members of the 'Young Historians' of the "Oregon Historical Society" where we had opportunities to share what we learned with others through projects like the American Freedom Train (my car was 'innovations'), and a play called 'Vignettes of Oregon's History'.

It certainly would be nice to get education back to the basics instead of all of the globalist, touchy-feely, society by consensus stuff that passes for knowledge these days.

And now back to your regularly scheduled blog....

Blessings upon the agitprop department.

oh oh oh ‒ that wheezing sound, is it Common Core getting kicked out of classrooms?

P.S.
Very nice read, Comrade al-Blogunov ‒ particularly for Yuropeans (a few brain cells assumed).
And brilliant teaching ‒ "In one of my Government classes...".
plus:

Komissar al-Blogunov wrote:... I took my class through the impeachment process with a House, a Senate, and a president ...

Just according to needs of masses as documented by our Tolstoyan Comrade :

Warren Peas wrote:... I had a series of teachers who made learning fun and exciting ...

P.P.S.
APUSH!
History-inclined comrades surely know the intrigues around Advanced Placement U.S. History (exams).
Stanley Kurtz wrote (meticulously documenting, as usual) an eye-opening series on that drive, most recently Sep. 2015 and Aug. 2015.

(overview: search APUSH here.)
(solution (SK points to)? as always: competition of ideas, no ("Gubmint") monopoly.)

Genosse Dummkopf wrote:oh oh oh ‒ that wheezing sound, is it Common Core getting kicked out of classrooms?

lämpel_red_propeller.png

P.S.
Very nice read, Comrade al-Blogunov ‒ particularly for Yuropeans (a few brain cells assumed).
And brilliant teaching ‒ "In one of my Government classes...".
plus:

Komissar al-Blogunov wrote:... I took my class through the impeachment process with a House, a Senate, and a president ...

Just according to needs of masses as documented by our Tolstoyan Comrade :

Warren Peas wrote:... I had a series of teachers who made learning fun and exciting ...

P.P.S.
APUSH!
History-inclined comrades surely know the intrigues around Advanced Placement U.S. History (exams).
Stanley Kurtz wrote (meticulously documenting, as usual) an eye-opening series on that drive, most recently Sep. 2015 and Aug. 2015.

(overview: search APUSH here.)
(solution (SK points to)? as always: competition of ideas, no ("Gubmint") monopoly.)

Mikhail Lysenkomann wrote:

Major Ursa Vitnopants wrote:This is why I cringe every time some kerflufflehead drones on about how we are a Democracy.

It all depends on what the meaning of 'we' is, Comrade.

The States are democracies. The Federation of States is not.

A most excellent point Comrade. Details such as these get lost as the Federal gubmint continues to grow and swallow state sovereignty bit by bit and dollar by dollar. The masses focus on the Federal gubmint being the end all be all instead of focusing on Federalism itself.

Many states, and nearly all of which with a bluish hue in particular, have become dependent on Federal handouts, just where the massive Federal bureaucracy wants them: dependent and subservient.

THESE United States is a phrase never uttered anymore. A small distinction between "These" and "The" but the meaning of such is actually quite substantial.

Personal Note: I am having a bear of a time with paragraph creation. Sometimes yes, sometimes all one jumble paragraph. Mea culpa. ETA:

Comrade Stierlitz wrote:(By the way, I was always taught that you should make a new paragraph when you're done with one idea and starting on another. Looks to me like you did a good job.)

I dared to use the Editor for the Rich which crushed my words under its jackboot from three paragraphs to one. Using the prol editor, all became well. Off to Jiffy-Lobo with me.

Major Ursa Vitnopants wrote:

Mikhail Lysenkomann wrote:

Major Ursa Vitnopants wrote:This is why I cringe every time some kerflufflehead drones on about how we are a Democracy.

It all depends on what the meaning of 'we' is, Comrade.

The States are democracies. The Federation of States is not.

A most excellent point Comrade. Details such as these get lost as the Federal gubmint continues to grow and swallow state sovereignty bit by bit and dollar by dollar. The masses focus on the Federal gubmint being the end all be all instead of focusing on Federalism itself.

Many states, and nearly all of which with a bluish hue in particular, have become dependent on Federal handouts, just where the massive Federal bureaucracy wants them: dependent and subservient.

[highlight=#ffff00]THESE United States is a phrase never uttered anymore. A small distinction between "These" and "The" but the meaning of such is actually quite substantial. [/highlight]

Personal Note: I am having a bear of a time with paragraph creation. Sometimes yes, sometimes all one jumble paragraph. Mea culpa.

THANK YOU! You are one of the few people I've seen on the internet that has realized this. We used to say "These" back in the 1800's and early 1900's, back when the States were still the building block of our American REPUBLIC (not democracy). However, I think we say "the" nowadays since the Fed gubmint has taken so much of the power rightfully delegated to the States and has essentially become the main building block. It used to be the States were all "citizens" cooperating to make this country great. Now, since their rightful power has been stripped from them, they're all serfs to their lord, which is the fed gov't.

And by their attempts to shutter the Electoral College, they're effectively threatening not only our Constitution, but also the final power that the States have. If they take that away, it might as well be Anarchy and centrally-planned Communism in our formerly great nation.

(By the way, I was always taught that you should make a new paragraph when you're done with one idea and starting on another. Looks to me like you did a good job.)

Comrade Stierlitz wrote:
And by their attempts to shutter the Electoral College, they're effectively threatening not only our Constitution, but also the final power that the States have. If they take that away, it might as well be Anarchy and centrally-planned Communism in our formerly great nation.

This is very nearly the definition of a coup d'etat is it not? Maybe not a violent overthrow, but certainly an alteration of the existing government.

Electoral college? Don't they play football in the same conference as Trump University?

I say we revoke all diplomas issued by this electoral college, dis-accredit their board of regents, and use their dormitories and facilities to house refugees.