The Electoral College, History and the ‘United States’ of the Founders. 

From Breitbart.cim

Obama Calls Electoral College a ‘Vestige’ of an ‘Earlier Version’ of America

38996

38

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“The Electoral College is a vestige, it’s a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states,” President Obama said Friday during a press conference at the White House.

((( that is, before the 14th Amendment effectively restructured the relationship between the States and the Federal Government from one of ‘service to’ to ‘dominance over’. -kia)))

“It used to be that the Senate was not elected directly, it was through state legislators,” he added. “It’s the same type of thinking that gives Wyoming two senators with about 500,000 people and California with 33 million gets the same two.”

((( Woodrow Wilson, another Progressive Democrat President, got that Amendment thru to further limit the States’ original independence from Federal control.. -kia )))

“The truth of the matter is that if we have a strong message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about, typically the popular vote and the electoral college vote will align.”

Asked his thoughts on whether Republican electors should vote for anyone but Trump, Obama said it’s not his place to “decide my successor.”

“With respect to the electors, I’m not going to weigh in on that issue,” Obama said. “Again, it’s the American people’s job, and now the electors’ job to decide my successor. It is not my job to decide my successor.”

((( AT least he’s smart enough to realize when he shouldn’t encourage a Constitutional Crisis with an Unconstitutional Coup. Thats more than I can say for the Major Media, the Clinton Campaign, Jill Stein and the DNC. -kia )))

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

—–

But he’s right, the ‘United States of America’ today are not what the Founders and the Constitution intended or established. Originally, the United States were (notice the person conjugation) free and independent States, Federated together for mutual support and defense, and serviced for such purposes by a Federal Government which organized them each other. 

Individuals were citizens of their States respectively and their States were ‘citizens’ or members of the United States. There was no ‘Collectivized’ Citizenship in a ‘Collectivized’ Country (notice the person conjugation) called ‘The United States of America’ because there wasn’t one. 

The House of Representatives was called ‘the people’s house’ because it represented the People of these (notice the person conjugation) Unites States, and the Senate represented the individual States as a counterbalance to ‘Mob Rule/tyranny of the Majority over the Minority’ made possible by Absolute Democracy. This is why we have a Bicameral Congress, not to institutionalize inequality and unfairness, but to prevent it. So the few large cities and States would not be able to monopolize power and rule over the majority of the rest of the States. 

The Founders’ intent, established with much thought and debate in the original Constitutional Congress, was to Balance the will of the Individual with the Independence of the States, with the latter being more important to prevent the type of Imperial or Dictatorial rule they had just spent a decade throwing off. That’s why the Founders gave Senators 6 year terms and selection by the State Legislatures, to provide the type of ‘longer view’ perspective on what would otherwise be prone to short sighted ‘mob rule’ pure democracy that would be open to easier emotional manipulation of the electorate… think the last three election cycles.

When Wilson changed election of Senators from selected by the individual States’ Legislatures to dierct election by the people of the States with the 17th Amendment, as a Progressive Democrat President, I think he knew what he was doing. He was further chipping away at the Rights and Independence of the Free and Independant States established by the Founders in the Constitution and the 10th and 11th Amendment, adding to the restructuring done by the 14th Amendment after ‘The War Between the States’, and completing the ‘newer version’ of our country that President Obama was referring to in difference to the one envisioned and established by the Founders.

The Electoral College is a representation of that earlier balance. It represents that original organization of Free and Independant States, their own citizens voting in the election for the Candidate of their own choice, then coming together to register that State’s vote. That’s why Progressive Democrats hate it so much. 

The ‘version’ we have today is NOT the original. It was changed. Can you guess when?

-kia

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “The Electoral College, History and the ‘United States’ of the Founders. 

  1. Well again we disagree. I have read up on the electoral college. What I found amazed me. It was a gimmick needed to form the first part of our union as a country. What I read was that the different states felt they wouldn’t have as much power as other states. They wanted to balance it out some how. I was really surprised how much it has changed since its origin. I think it needs to change again. It is out of balance again. That was the thing used to change it in the past. The part I disagree with you on if I understood your post, is that I feel the electoral college should be gotten rid of entirely. My view is that it has become undemocratic. See in the last 16 years twice has a candidate won the popular vote and yet lost the presidency. That is a total wrong. In this case the country did vote for the democrat by over 2.8 million more votes. Yet they are denied the president of their choice due to this archaic system. I believe the will of the people should be the determining factor, and yes it is true people will be divided. The will of the majority of voters was for Hillary Clinton. Instead we got Trump. I think this is a travesty and it is not a true democracy. Be well, have a happy season. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

    • There is a legal way to change and amend the Constitution and change the Electoral College. That’s what it would take to do away with it. Trying to ignore or circumvent it because you disagree with the outcome of an election is unconstitutional

      Liked by 1 person

      • Whoa…. I think we jumped a few rails here. I said nothing of trying to ignore or circumvent the election. In fact as much as I totally despise / hate / am in fear of / the results of this election, have you ever seen anything written by me to overturn it? I don’t support faithless electors, and I don’t like the system of electors to begin with. I have seen a pattern though. You attack anyone who seems to challenge the election. I don’t know why. I know we argued before on a lot of issues of the election. I know a lot of stuff is local and influenced by locality. In fact our country is so large that many things that are deemed normal or accepted actions in one part are totally foreign in another part of the country. Yet I am a bit confused. Whenever we talk about other things we are amicable. Yet when we talk of this election I get the feeling of anger and upset from you. I am confused? I thought you were open to talking issues out, that you were willing to discuss things that others felt important that you disregard.

        I never want to cause upset and I dislike animosity. If talking about the election upsets you I simply will refrain from addressing it with you. I have enjoyed your posts and our interactions. However I do not want to be the cause of another person’s disharmony for an insufficient reason. If there was a reason to do so I would, but in this case I simply do not think the fact of who won the election to be worth it. Now the actions of the one who won the election will definitely be worth arguing about.

        This got far longer than I planned. I hope the best for you this season, I hope you have some great eggnog if you enjoy it. many warm seasonal hugs. Scottie

        Liked by 1 person

          • It is possible I misunderstood. The act of reading and writing is an inaccurate science. In fact I had an english teacher who said that what you said and the other person heard were two different things. Funny I don’t remember much of my English classes but that one stuck with me. It is hard to express ourselves in a way that others really get what we are trying to say. Mostly people hear what we say through filters of their own area, perception, or their own life experiences. No need for apologies. I would rather we work harder, myself included here as I need to also, on understanding what each other is saying. Thanks and have a great night. Hugs

            Liked by 2 people

            • Well Scottie I have to say you are one of the most reasonable people I have come across in the blogsphere.

              You are correct when you say that we can easily misconstrue what others mean. I still recall a time when I made a comment to fellow blogger Wally. He responded telling me how I dare I insult him, what really perplexed me is that I was actually trying to contemplate him and he totally misunderstood my intention. Now it was probably a combination of two factors, me being less erudite than desirable and Wally interpreting my comment based on presuppositions.

              The most refreshing thing to find on blog exchanges is folk who can admit they might be mistaken, so many of us are loathe to do so. I consider those who are prepared to admit they might be error as the real heroes of these exchanges.

              Liked by 2 people

              • Hello Peter. I don’t really feel like a hero. I just know I can be wrong. I Have been many times. There is the old joke about ” I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken”. I am not one who thinks I know it all, or that I never made a mistake. My problem is a lack of education. It takes me a while to look up what people are saying, to then distill the information. Unless it is something I was trained in, I really can’t say the other person’s Idea of it is wrong unless I can show a reason it is. I guess what I am saying is I would rather talk ideas out, and reason them, then just claim a predetermined position. I admit there have been times I have changed my view of a subject based on the reasoned and well constructed discussion from some one. I hope I am not the odd man out on that. I do hope that when people find an argument or discussion they agree with it will change their view of things. Thanks and be well. Happy holidays. Hugs

                Liked by 1 person

              • Thank you. I have to say I swelled with happiness reading this from you. Your skills and accomplishments means a compliment from you is like three fold its importance and meaning. I am feeling so grand right now. Hugs

                Liked by 1 person

          • Thank you. I read some where and I don’t remember where, that it is easier to take offence than think about what someone is saying that may not agree with your views. Now I am not saying this happened here on either of our parts. I am just saying I can see how you might think I was saying one thing when I was not, and I know I have thought in the past you were saying something and after talking I realised I got your response totally wrong. That is to me the important part, being willing to keep talking, to try to understand and meet the other fellow half way across the bridge. If I am correct we are going to need a lot of that feeling the next few years. Be well. Hugs

            Liked by 2 people

    • I suppose that the Electoral College reflects the reality that the US was founded as a federation of independent states. If the US had been founded as a whole country and then broken up into states I doubt anyone would have ever contrived an outcome like the electoral college.

      I do consider that it is perhaps time that the Electoral College be revisited. What I find bizarre is not so much the electoral college, but rather that its members can vote for who they like. Really under the current legalities it seems that it would make more sense for each state to elect the Members of the Electoral College who would campaign on who they intend to support.

      The idea that some folk in Washington State that the voters had no say in choosing can thumb their nose at electors and vote for someone called ‘Faith Spotted Eagle’ seems the real scandal here.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Interestingly where I live Australia we have a similar system to your Congress, that is a lower house with seats based on population and an upper house with each state having the same representation regardless of population.

    A former Prime Minister once notoriously referred to the state based upper house as ‘unrepresentative swill’.

    I can see pros and cons for the electoral college method.

    What is ironic in the US is that so few people vote, yet the country seems so focussed on democracy. At the 2014 mid term election the turnout was only 36%. So I ponder, just how highly do people value their democracy if so few actually vote? Now I realise that those in safe seats/states would reason that their vote makes no difference, but still even in the 2016 election it seems many folk stayed home even in the swing states.

    Liked by 2 people

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s