The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump

[Suppressed]

The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump
Michael Signer  Nov. 17, 2016   

Michael Signer is the Mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, an attorney, and a lecturer at the University of Virginia. His most recent book is Becoming Madison

Trump promises to bring to the presidency precisely the 'tumult and disorder' that Hamilton warned against


Correspondent Lesley Stahl interviews a raccoon President-elect [sic] Donald J. Trump and his family at his Manhattan home on Nov. 11, 2016.
CBS via Getty Images

Since Nov. 9, Donald Trump has been described as our “President-elect.” But many would be shocked to learn that this term is actually legally meaningless. The Constitution sets out a specific hurdle for Trump to ascend to the presidency. And that will not happen until Dec. 19 when the members of the Electoral College meet in their respective states to vote for the President.

It’s these electors who actually hold power under the Constitution to select Donald Trump as president. They should take that responsibility very seriously. They owe it to all Americans to deliberate on their choice in the manner required by the Constitution.


The fact is that the Electoral College was primarily designed to stop a demagogue—a tyrannical mass leader who preys on our prejudices—from becoming President.


Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

They were to “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” as the selection of the President, and they were supposed to “afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” They were even supposed to prevent “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

Hamilton was talking about demagogues. The word “demagogue” appears in both the first and last Federalist Papers; in Federalist Paper Number 1, for instance, Hamilton worried about the “military despotism of a victorious demagogue.”


[...]

The electors were supposed to be statesmen. Even though recent years have seen a decline in statesmanship in America, they could be reborn this year. Statesmen truly have our greater good truly at heart, pursuing the broader purpose of America and calming the passions.

If these men and women live up to that noble goal on Dec. 19, they will truly make American great again.

[The above is an excerpt.  Read more at http://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/]


Regardless of whether or not Trump is a demagogue, any true Constitutionalist must admit that we've veered very, very far from the true concept of the Electoral College.

[Night Hides Not]

When I think of "demagogue", two people that come to my mind first are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Obama has certainly been more tyrannical than Trump, as evidenced by his use of the Executive Order, and hastening of directives in his remaining time in office.

ETA:

They were even supposed to prevent “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

That would seem to rule out Hillary, thanks to the millions reaped in "pay to play" with the Clinton Foundation during her term as Secretary of State.

And this guy's paid to be a lecturer at a college?  SMDH

[NavyCanDo]

Regardless of whether or not Trump is a demagogue, any true Constitutionalist must admit that we've veered very, very far from the true concept of the Electoral College.

Preventing a  totalitarian was only part of the reason. The other and probably more discussed reason at the convention was to prevent one heavily populated area of the country from becoming the ruling-class dominant area of the country. The Electoral College is not perfect - but without it -you are not only inviting a totalitarian state, but some  80 percent of people will live within 62 miles of the West or East coast - which also vote heavily Democrat. Fly-over country would be just that.

[Suppressed]

The other and probably more discussed reason at the convention was to prevent one heavily populated area of the country from becoming the ruling-class dominant area of the country.

That's nearly all that's discussed as a reason now.  The fact that Electors were meant to be reasoning, empowered delegates is nearly ignored these days -- and is directly subverted by the law in 29 states!

IMHO, nobody can consider himself a true constitutional conservative without abhorring this undermining of the republican roots of our nation.

[r9etb]

See this page (look at the Data and Statistics: Popular Vote - State Level)

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Clinton won the popular vote by 1.4 million, including California.

But if you exclude California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.8 million.

[HonestJohn]

See this page (look at the Data and Statistics: Popular Vote - State Level)

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Clinton won the popular vote by 1.4 million, including California.

But if you exclude California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.8 million.

What does California have to do with anything?

Why not remove Texas, for that matter?

[r9etb]

What does California have to do with anything?

Why not remove Texas, for that matter?

Fair question. 

Reference to California is in response to the trope that Clinton "won the popular vote."  Well, that's true ... but really, the difference in popular vote is explained by the fact that she won the hell out of a few populous counties in a few states, particularly California.

The discussion of California, especially in the context of the vastly red county-by-county map, is a good explanation for why the electoral college is still very relevant and necessary.

[ABX]

Interesting but I think elector defection at this point is the wrong move, not only because Hillary is so awful, but because we've moved into a very reactionary time where it is doubtful electors are: men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. Instead, an elector revolt would likely to be along the lines of done through coercion or manipulation, not careful thought and deliberation.