NOWHERE did the Framers [FN1] say during the 1787 Convention, State conventions or in The Federalist that a candidate for Pres who comes in second or lower in the popular vote should win in a republic. In fact, the notion of majority rule is of fundamental importance. [FN2] 1/13

“Winner-take-all” was not discussed as a way to award electors. National elections of 1788, the first under the Constitution, saw legislatures of five States select their electors [FN3]; three did not timely choose electors [FN4]; two had popular vote, district-by-district [FN5]; 2/13

two States chose by statewide popular vote [FN6]; one split w/popular vote district-by-district & and the legislature appointing two electors at-large. [FN7] Winner-take-all did not become the predominant way to apportion electors until after the election of 1824. [FN8] 3/13

As noted in the last blog, the winner-take-all method of selecting electors disenfranchises large numbers of voters. It was a method neither discussed nor anticipated by the Framers. I’ll go into greater detail in my next blog, but I want to make a final point/extend an invitation. 4/13

I am tired, beyond disgust, of hearing rightwing podcast hosts brag that progressives will not debate them. I have offered to debate several of them. What they will not do is agree to rules that are basic. Time limits and prohibition on talking during the other side’s time are 5/13

absolutes in any formal debate. An Indianapolis gun idiot [FN9] replied, after I said I’d be glad to debate with these rules, that he doesn’t limit himself in “interviews.” [FN10] As soon as I say there has to be a level playing field, they run for the hills. So here’s the gig: 6/13

1) A specific resolution; 2) Time limits; and 3) Can’t interrupt the other side. I’m open to topics, but we have to agree on what the topic will be. People such as the gun idiot or Kevin_Smith45, to whose challenge to debate I agreed in early April, don’t really mean it. I’m sure 7/13

they prefer the same calm, reasoned back-and-forth as the Reich tribunal in 1944 gave to the people who had conspired to off der Fuehrer. My invitation still is open, with the time limits and rules I’ve stated. If you are aware of rightwing podcasters who have issued such 8/13

hollow challenges, please let me know. I’d prefer debating virtually as the logistics are a bit cumbersome for in-person. Also, the mob at a “live” event can drown out someone as they try to speak. That’s against the grain of trying to speak and be heard. 9/13

Footnotes:
FN1. The National Archives has defined the Framers as the 55 delegates selected by 12 States (Rhode Island did not send any delegates) to the 1787 Convention in Philadelphia and who actually attended. 10/13

FN2. A fundamental idea in all republican forms of gov’t that no one can be declared elected/no measure declared carried, unless he/it receives majority or plurality of legal votes cast in the election." 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 243, p. 353. Oviatt v. Behme, 238 Ind. 69, 78 (1958). 11/13

FN3. Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia. Peirce and Longley, “The People’s President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct Vote Alternative,” 1981 ed., p. 33. 12/13

FN4. New York missed the day for voting and its electors were not chosen. Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitution. Id.
FN5. Virginia and Maryland. Id.
FN6. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Id.
FN7. Massachusetts, Id. 13/13