Slavery Was Irrelevant to the Creation of the Electoral College

I was just reading Max Farrand's (1913)  Framing of the Constitution of the United States (Palladium Press reprint, 2000) in order to get a sense of the basis of the claim that I have seen in various newspapers that the creation of the Electoral College in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was somehow relevant to slavery.  There is no basis for this claim. It is fiction, fake news, bunkum, or whatever you wish to call it.  (For an example of the bunkum, see this, which erroneously claims that the three-fifths rule was important to the Constitutional debate and also erroneously seems to claim that the free populations of states like Virginia and North Carolina were smaller rather than larger than Northern states like New Jersey and Rhode Island.)

Wikipedia lists the states by 1790 population, and the eight states with the fewest free white males were Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont Maine, South Carolina, and New Hampshire--half Northern, half Southern.  However, the debate at the Convention and the use of the terms "small states" and "large states" didn't exactly follow the population numbers.

Farrand's book is eminently readable and held my attention for about 200 pages.  His answer is clear: Slavery was irrelevant to the great compromise and the creation of the Electoral College.  He notes that, with respect to the great compromise--concerning the assignment of two senators per state and proportional representation for the House, to appease the large states--there had been fallacious speculation by historians in the 19th century concerning a role for the slavery issue, but  it was not at issue.

The famous three-fifths rule had already been in effect under the Articles of Confederation, and much of the Constitution was taken from the Articles as well as other preexisting state constitutions, especially that of New York.  When I had first read New York's constitution several years ago for the first time, I had supposed that the state had copied the federal Constitution, but it was the other way around.

In sum, in the 1787 Constitutional Convention there was little discussion about the existing three-fifths rule, and it was irrelevant to the great compromise and the Electoral College.

The small state-versus-large-state dispute had its roots in the small states' fear of absorption by the largest states.  The three largest  states in order of increasing size were Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,  and Virginia.  The large states had claims to Western lands, and those claims distinguished them from the smaller states.  Although Georgia was a small state in population, it too thought it might have claims on Western lands, so it voted with the large states.

The smaller states included New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland.  New Hampshire and Rhode Island were missing from the convention debate, but they would have been in the small-state category. Delaware and Maryland were relatively slave states.

Slavery existed in all states in 1787, and there was no abolition debate to speak of.  The claim that there were slave states and free states is false. All states in 1787 were slave states.  Moreover, slavery became much more important after Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793.

Hence, slavery was not much discussed in the Constitutional debate.  At one point Madison raised the point that the North-South divide was more important than the small-state-large-state divide, but the delegates were concerned with the latter, not the former.   The small-state-large-state debate was important with respect to the compromise concerning proportional representation of the House and fixed representation in the Senate. It was also relevant to the creation of the Electoral College.

The original plan for the Electoral College was that the electors of each state would vote for two people, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of that state.  The person having a majority of votes would win, but if there was no majority, the decision would be made in the Senate. In the final version the House rather than the Senate was to break ties.

Virtually no one in the Constitutional Convention believed in popular, direct election of the president.   Instead, the electors would have independent thought in their vote.  Farrand writes:

It was expected that the electors would naturally vote for men from their own state...each elector was expected to vote independently according to his own judgment...it was expected that the vote would be so scattered as to not give a majority to any one person. This would throw the election to the Senate.  In other words, and it was so explained again and again, and by such men as Madison, Sherman, King, and Gouverneur Morris, under this system the large states would nominate the candidates and the eventual election would be controlled by the small states

The convention acted on the assumption that this would happen in the great majority of cases. 'Nineteen times in twenty,' Mason asserted in the federal convention, and a little later in the Virginia state convention he claimed forty-nine times out of fifty--the vote of the electors would NOT be decisive.

In other words, they thought the Senate would control the election of president.  Farrand adds, " It is quite possible here, as in so many other questions, the large states accomplished their purpose under a veil of concession."  The use of the House rather than the Senate was accepted without much debate.

The issue of slavery had as little to do with the creation of the Electoral College as did the price of tea in China.

Rural Sectionalism and the Election of Donald Trump

A December 29  Wall Street Journal piece shows 20 charts that indicate how badly rural Americans have fared. The election of Donald Trump, mostly by rural voters, can be interpreted to be a reaction, and the campaign to eliminate the Electoral College a counterreaction.

Inflation-adjusted household income has declined since 2000, and it has declined the most in rural areas. Much of the decline occurred during the Obama years. That contrasts with the stock market, which has received massive public subsidization. 

Those who foot the bill for "too-big-to-fail" banks are the same people who are dying at increasing rates.

Where I live, Olive, NY, New York City has long played an imperialistic role similar to that of any Roman-style power. It has done so to procure virtually free water; it chose to go the imperial route rather than purchase water ethically back in the 19th century.

In his book Empire of Water, David Soll outlines the 100-year history of theft, exploitation, and regulatory caprice that deprived the ancestors of many people I see each day of their homes and businesses, forcing many who had owned family businesses into becoming day laborers.

Environmentalists, dominant in the Democratic Party, have learned from New York City and since the 1990s have systematically attacked rural areas. This occurred most aggressively during the Obama years.

Not satisfied with increasing death rates in rural areas, Robert Reich, the American media, and their fellow Democrats campaign for more political power to be concentrated in urban centers by abolishing the Electoral College.  The end of the Electoral College would mean even more extreme depredation of rural America than has already occurred. 

Long Live the Electoral College

I favor the Electoral College. Direct democracy was a failure in Athens; it is a failure in the US. The American people are easily manipulated by special interests and hardcore, tyrannical socialists like Bernie Sanders.

American politics has become a debate between two self-interested, elite interest groups: the Democratic Party, including academics, professional interests like psychologists, schoolteachers, and lawyers, and some investment banks; and the Republican Party, including economic special interests like pharmaceutical companies, natural resource interests, agribusiness, and some investment banks.

Direct democracy represents one or the other of the corrupt special interest constellations, so it has failed. Big government is incompatible with direct democracy. The delusion of direct democracy is one of the principle methods that the Democrats use to manipulate the public into imagining that the Democrats' corrupt special interests somehow represent the public,

The public has done much worse since the establishment of the current presidential primary system and the ending of the republican principle by the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments.

The founders saw the need for a republican form of government, one that combines majority and aristocratic rule. Overt aristocratic rule by the Senate led to the best American statesmanship, a point that De Tocqueville explicitly observes in Democracy in America.

American workers fared much better before the Progressive era than they do today. There was more freedom; wages increased every year; savings rates were at 30%. The use of eminent domain to steal private property was comparatively rare. There was more income equality (less income inequality) under the republican system than under the Progressive and post-New Deal systems.

One of the safeguards the founders put in place was to limit the power of urban areas. Urban areas are prone to totalitarian, extremist impulses, and we witness that today with Mayor de Blasio's Red Guard-like lynching of history and his eagerness to smash statutes of Christopher Columbus and Theodore Roosevelt.

The states signed on to a Constitution (a) that was limited to delegated powers and (b) that weighted voting power to limit the authority of the totalitarian-tending masses in urban areas. One of the ways it did this was the Electoral College.

The principle of delegated powers was overthrown by authoritarian, urban elites (in the person of Hamilton and the party of the Federalists) almost as soon as the Constitution was passed; the principle in the Declaration that government exists by the consent of the governed was overturned in the Civil War; the republican principle was overturned by the Progressives in the 16th, 17th, 18th Amendments. All of these centralizing policies were mistakes, but only the 18th Amendment, Prohibition, was repealed.

The people of rural America would be fools to favor ending the Electoral College.

Andy Martin Proposes Jam Up of Electoral College

Based on discussions with Dr. Edwin Vieira, Contrairimairi has suggested that those concerned with media failures surrounding Barack Obama and his unwillingness to disclose vital information (birth certificate, educational and medical history) ought to pursue the question with the Electoral College. I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin, who builds on Dr. Vieira's and Contrairimairi's original idea:

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TRIGGERS ANOTHER ANTI-OBAMA FIRESTORM WITH "MAGIC MOMENT ON THE INTERNET"

MARTIN ASKS INTERNET AUDIENCE TO CONTACT MCCAIN ELECTORS FOR A UNIFIED CHALLENGE TO OBAMA IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

"THE ORIGINAL INTENT" OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE," SAYS MARTIN; THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUBBER-STAMPING SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO RELEASE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

WILL CONSERVATIVES RESPOND? OR MEEKLY SURRENDER?

(CHICAGO)(November 7, 2008) Thursday night/Friday morning Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from Barack Obama. Martin was a guest on a talk show hosted by Lan Lamphere. The show can be heard in archive form.http://www.talkstreamlive.com/listen.aspx?showid=3481

"It was a moment that has to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "I was asked to do a brief guest shot on Lan's show. But something 'magic' happened. In a 'Network'-style moment, Lan asked his audience to shower us with e-mails; it started pouring. What was supposed to last a few minutes lasted almost four and a half hours of live radio. It wouldn't stop. The audience kept growing until they finally started collapsing from exhaustion at 1:20 A.M. CST.

"Out of this extraordinary spontaneous combustion I produced the constitutional strategy that McCain electors should 'jam up' the electoral college with parliamentary procedures and demands for production of Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate (certificate of live birth). The response of the audience was electric.

"Friday morning we are going to start organizing a 'Goal Line Stand' in the Electoral College to force Barack Obama to produce his original 1961 birth certificate for review by the American people," Martin said. "Republicans, conservatives and independents have a new rallying point. Don't let Obama pass through the Electoral College until he has produced his original
birth certificate and ended the mystery shrouding his origins."

Hawai'i officials on October 31st confirmed Martin's claim that that they do hold Obama's original 1961 document in their vault.

No one outside two Department of Health officials has seen the original document.

Martin has a court hearing Tuesday, November 18th in the Circuit Court for Honolulu, Hawai'i at 10:30 A.M. to force release of Obama's original birth files.

Dr. Vieira's Electoral College Strategy

I just received the following e-mail from Contrairimairi. Dr. Vieiras has proposed an electoral college strategy. Does anyone know how to get the names and addresses of the electoral college delegates? We can send them letters proposing a demand for an investigation:

Dear Mitchell,
I spoke with Dr. Vieira just a while ago. I am very impressed with his knowledge about BO's citizenship standing. He has offered some GREAT insight into handling the problem.
His first idea is to have a member or members of the electoral college demand proof of the citizenship to verify that they are able to legally vote for him. Most of us already knew that one.
His second idea is to file the suit after he signs a piece of legislation that directly affects us as individuals, challenging his authority to do so. He says in that case, the Judge cannot deny standing.
He says Berg's suit will be thrown out, and if people continue to file the suits, the Court will label them "frivolous" and begin fining anyone who brings a suit.
I asked him about Sarah Palin bringing suit, and he claims she does not even have enough standing, that it would have to be filed now by a presidential candidate, (we can BANK JMC won't bring it!), or by a major contributor to BO's campaign, who may not be able to get what they were promised if BO is challenged and loses the challenge.
He told me he is "very certain" that BO will be challenged when he signs a piece of legislation, if he is not challenged by either the electoral college, or one of the other presidential candidates first.
I believe him. We spoke for a very long time, and he is very firm in his convictions. He told me not to pursue filing in Illinois at this time. I think he is hoping that the suits that may be labeled "frivolous" will end, and that we will wait and be patient until the timing is absolutely correct for a "WIN" on a challenge.
Thank you for convincing me to contact him. I feel very confident now that we will not suffer too much longer. It is just a shame that BO is going to allow this to be much more damaging and divisive than it should ever have been, but Americans will need to remember that it was BO's choice to be hurtful, not that of his opposition.
His own arrogance is likely to put a world of hurt on this Country, but once again, I have to say that I believe it is our generation's turn to defend America, only this time, in a way our predecessors could barely have imagined!
It is going to be difficult to be patient. Have you heard from Steve Marquis if the electors have filed suit?
Hope this is good news for you.
Mairi

Need for Electoral College Reform

I have to get this off my chest. Many "progressives" argue for elimination of the Electoral College. This step would be in the long "democratic" tradition of "Progressivism" whereby direct popular vote replaces institutional safeguards against excessive crowd zeal. The Progressives established direct primaries, direct election of US Senators (previously they had been elected by state legislatures), and the referendum and recall in some states. The effect of these steps has been a reduction in freedom and a reduction in democracy. The reason is that the elite media finds it easier to manipulate mass opinion than it would find it to manipulate elected partisans. Direct democracy threatens freedom because the public can be easily bamboozled to support steps that further the aims of economic and social elites (Wall Street, college professors). Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, the public has naively accepted inflationary policies that harm it; have quietly acquiesced in declining real wages because the media tells them it is the inevitable result of free markets (as opposed to inflation and wealth transfer imposed by the Federal Reserve Bank through monetary subsidies to Wall Street and commercial bankers).

The true roots of America are in the rural states. America was an agricultural country and the founders, especially Jefferson, believed in the physiocrat philosophy that farming is the most noble way of life and that the best society is one composed of free landholders. Moreover, the Red States are closest to the culture of the founders in terms of intuitive understanding of the American ideal and in terms of the love of freedom on which this country is based. Elitists and opportunists who know a lot of false economic theory but don't produce much and are alienated from the American dream dominate the urban "Blue" states.

I do believe the Electoral College needs to be reformed. The number of votes given to rural states needs to be doubled, and the number of votes given to urban states needs to be halved. Only with a redistributed electoral college can America enjoy freedom and liberty.

Obama Wins Popular Vote, McCain Wins Electoral College?

Jules Crittenden (h/t Larwyn) quotes an AP/Yahoo article with a tasty suggestion: John McCain wins the Electoral College while Obama wins the popular vote. Doug Ross says he's taking out his Y2K bunker.