Madison may have been entitled to that opinion, and he most certainly has a strong point, but…
Carl Sandburg

So, the contention that arguments were later invented to justify the necessity of the Electoral College are dubious at best.

I didn’t say anything about later. They were engaged in political propaganda and rhetoric at the time of the penning of the Constitution, and they had to sell this idea of an electoral college, or the whole thing was going to be a bust.

The founders were no doubt arguing about a multitiude of reasons to avoid electing by popular vote. Slavery was certainly one of them. To assert that slavery is the preeminent or primary one cannot be substantiated. Such a claim remains merely an opinion.

Here’s my logic. If the Three-Fifths Compromise and the electoral college were not included, the Constitution never would have been ratified. The Southern states simply would not accept the terms otherwise. Regardless of all the other rationalizations, the reality the framers had to accept was that they had to give into the demands of the Southern slaveholders if they wanted to form a union that included them. Others may have genuinely wanted the electoral college, but many in the North were perfectly happy with a popular vote system, and the “check against tyranny” crowd had a tiny degree of influence compared to the bloc of Southern states that demanded an electoral apparatus like the electoral college to credit their slave populations while, at the same time, preventing black people from having a political voice.

Like this opinion: If we elected the President by popular vote, Taylor Swift would be starting on January 20. She would be writing songs about the former boyfriends who didn’t vote for her.

She’s not 35. That barrier aside, I would vote for her over Clinton or Trump. What you’re describing is not a worse outcome.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.