Historic reason for the electoral college in the USA?

What was the historic reasoning for the electoral college in the USA? I was always curious as to how this really works and why. People have argued "Well why does a guy voting in Wyoming have like 10 times the voting power of a guy voting in California?" Hell I don't know. However its interesting because what I have read is that it is used as a sort of stop gap to prevent the larger and more populous states from basically running the whole USA. So effectively stopping places like California and New York from just controlling the whole nation. Is that true though?

I think where it gets weird is that people argue that no matter how small the state, they always get two delegates or something? Why is that particular mechanic in play? I wish I knew more about the real mechanics behind it all but I just generally have no idea. Its hard to find unbiased reasonings as to why such mechanics exist too. What do you think?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ensuring each state has a level of equality in deciding presidential elections and that it's not just decided by the most populous 1-2 states. in Canada for comparison they have no such setup and Montreal/Toronto just determines the outcome of national elections.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus. Is that really how it is in Canada. Sounds odd. Now, what would be the argument against just straight "1 person, 1 vote" type of government setup? A direct democracy? Some would argue that the USA should just do that but seems also moronic to me. I guess most situations end up in a way of one particular group of whatever running the show sort of. Like now, some would say that "swing states" run the show and if you don't live in a swing state, then you vote effectively doesn't matter. Unsure if that is true. I imagine so because I have lived in a place that has voted solid democrat for decades.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        correct. i will say leafs have a couple advantages such as how provinces were allowed to close off their borders during COVID epidemic while US states are constitutionally prohibited from doing that but yes they don't have equivalent of the electoral college and so the two largest cities just decide elections there.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >such as how provinces were allowed to close off their borders during COVID epidemic
          That's not an advantage. In the US people were actually allowed to cross state lines to a more strict state if they felt their own states COVID mandates weren't good enough, or vice-versa if they felt their states COVID mandates were too draconian.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            allowing people to opt out of a quarantine ruins the whole point, and even the "strict" states got covid from elsewhere well before Canada did because they weren't allowed to close the borders

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >allowing people to opt out of a quarantine ruins the whole point
            Yes, but so does enforcing a sort of "quarantine" that is mainly done for social signalling purposes in the first place.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not swing voters or swing states, but the concentration of people who voted for Ross Perot in '92 or the reform party after that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what would be the argument against just straight "1 person, 1 vote" type of government setup? A direct democracy?

        direct democracy only really works on the level of a city-state like Athens

        in the case of a single city, you can be relatively assured that all the free citizens of that city have a common interest
        in the case of Athens, if you wanted to vote you had to procure arms and armor and fight with the other citizens in defense of your common home

        when you're talking about multiple cities or a continent spanning nation state, that breaks down very quickly because there are so many conflicts of interest and there's the possibility of just a few cities banding together to fleece everyone else

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the US was founded as a federation of 13 separate British colonies and the smaller ones were afraid that they'd get rolled by the bigger ones and refused to sign on without concessions.
    Though Wyoming in particular (and the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho) weren't among those states, although a couple of the current small states (Rhode Island and Delaware) are from the original 13. They were a case of the party in power at the time trying to pack the senate by flooding it with small states that'd vote for them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I see. This makes sense. It really seems like some people don't want other areas votes to matter at all honestly. I get that wyoming and other far less populous states need some reason to stay in the union. Otherwise, why would they? I think wyoming has like 600,000 people or something? California has 40 million? Its an insane differential.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Someone from Kansas is going to have very different needs than someone from California. A person from Kansas is going to live in a very different enviornment , their state is going to have different geography and climate, which means different infrastructural needs, he might even be a farmer that needs subsidies to stay afloat.

    Someone from California is going to be more likely to live in an urban enviornment, in a mild coastal climate, and have very different needs than the farmer from Kansas. But there are more Californians, so Californians in a direct democracy would have disproportionate voting power. This means presidential candidates would be otherwise forced to apppeal exclusively to Californians while Kansas gets neglected. It's to force presidential candidates to consider the entire country on a broas scale. And no, it's not a flawless system, but it's still better than the alternative.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >needs subsidies to stay afloat

      subsidies and price fixing are designed not to support small independent farmers, but to protect the relative monopolies and profit margins of agricorpos who are their biggest competition

      other than that you're on the money

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's so certain states don't tyrannize the smaller ones, and so the interests of smaller states are given due consideration that they wouldn't have otherwise due to smaller population size

    this is a union of states, not a single state

    a state having relatively smaller population doesn't mean it isn't vital or important to the operation of the nation as a whole

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why the frick does Wyoming have such a low population anyway. For such a large state, so few people live in it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most of Wyoming is federally protected land because it's protected wilderness

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Historically it exists primarily because smaller states didn't want to be completely ignored. It's a good system because the importance of some parts of the country isn't directly proportional to population size. Personally I think that States themselves would do well to have electoral colleges of a similar type, composed of their own counties each with a minimum number of votes per county, to do a similar thing. I think the only reason this might be implausible is that counties are too easily changeable and thus could be manipulated, which wouldn't be good. In Nevada they tried to create a county, Bullfrog county, with 0 people in it for a while.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    City slickers are historically despised and with good reason

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What was the historic reasoning for the electoral college in the USA?

    DO YOUR OWN INTERNET SEARCHING YOU moron
    WE ARE NOT YER GOOGLE BISH

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every answer before this one is shit. I mean yes it's true thatit's designed so that lower population states don't get cucked by higher population states but that doesn't answer the question of why it exists in the first place

    The whole idea is that the electors were unironically supposed to be the guys that pick the president. The states could choose their electors however they wanted, it could be by popular vote, or by the legislature, or the governor could appoint them or whatever. Oh and the founders(kind of naively) didn't envision there would be nominees or parties or campaigns. So the process was supposed to be: the states select their electors who are wise educated men that they trust to have good judgement. The electors would then convene and be like "hmmm this governor from Georgia seems pretty based" regardless of whether that governor has expressed any interest in being prez. This system worked as intended for a little while, though parties and presidential campaigns quickly started forming. But the first few guys were picked by the electors.

    So to answer the question of why the founders made this weird system that's kind of a national popular vote but not really, the answer is they didn't. We were just all MUH DEMOCRACY and gradually changed it into what it is today.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IQfy I didn't type all that just for the thread to die dammit

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *