3 thoughts on “Was the Electoral College a “Pro-Slavery Ploy?”

  1. “The one-eighty flips of public opinion get damped out — no more “HARD LEFT RUDDER! NO, HARD RIGHT RUDDER! NO, HARD LEFT RUDDER! NO, HARD RIGHT RUDDER!” as the supertanker gets closer and closer to the rock.” And this explains Donald Trump??

    Like

  2. I don’t know specifically about their intent with the electoral college, but protecting the institution of slavery, at least for the foreseeable future, was an absolute built into the framework. The men who supposedly had the guts to risk their lives and fortunes for right principles to lead the revolution did not do so when creating the constitution.

    Like

  3. Was the Electoral College a “Pro-Slavery Ploy?”

    Only in the sense of balancing out the large and small states and giving the small states a bit more clout than their size would indicate. Otherwise “Majority Rules – Roll Right Over Them!” like Yugoslavia after Tito, Bellweather’s goal in Zootopia, or population-only apportionment like we have in my current home state (where whatever Los Angeles and San Franciso Want, Los Angeles and San Francisco Get).

    Two side effects of the Electoral College system are like all indirect/representative systems it acts as a shock absorber, especially in today’s instant Flash Mob Mass Movement environment. The one-eighty flips of public opinion get damped out — no more “HARD LEFT RUDDER! NO, HARD RIGHT RUDDER! NO, HARD LEFT RUDDER! NO, HARD RIGHT RUDDER!” as the supertanker gets closer and closer to the rock.

    A second side effect is it tends to act as a tiebreaker when the popular vote is very close; sometimes this results in the winning Electoral Vote losing the Popular Vote, but in such cases the popular vote was close enough to be within the “fuzz factor” for an effective tie. And remember Indecision 2000? What if instead of Florida alone, the Chad Circus had to be done over the entire country?

    Like

Comments are closed.