Paula,
I went back to my source (a constitutional scholar) about the electoral college/popular vote discrepancy, and here is what he wrote back:
"The 1872 election was the first in which every competing state used a popular vote to determine its electors; since 1832, South Carolina had been the lone state to decide electors by the state legislature." So in 1824 apparently there was more than one state that still appointed electors, making any national "popular vote" irrelevant to the election of JQA even aside from the 12th amendment provision for Congress to resolve an election where there is no majority. Since there was no majority in the popular vote, abolishing the electoral college would have produced the same result, unless the majority vote requirement was also scrapped.
The 1888 election was won by Harrison without a majority of the popular vote. But again, starting in 1876 the solid south had by
then reached the height of its terrorist and trickery suppression of
the Black vote. In 1890 it started to systematically
disenfranchise by law, with the support of the Supreme Court. Mississippi v Williams, 170 U.S. 213 (1898) (discriminatory voter
registration rolls), and Giles v Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) (grandfather clause).
The Republicans also stole a lot votes in 1888. But the solid south was an artificial construct of white supremacists, which included a lot of ballot stuffing in addition to vote suppression. I would argue that 1888
was an example of electoral college protection against a corrupt popular vote total. Since at least 2000 we have entered a new era of corrupt popular vote totals. But the 2000 type of election theft was arguably different than 1888, because election machine-based election theft allows targeting of the specific swing states necessary to tilt the
electoral college irrespective of popular vote. It would be more
effective to focus energy on passing a paper ballot law and empowering an anti--election fraud commission than changing the electoral college. From US experience one could argue that it has been election fraud that leads to the electoral college and popular vote disparity, when it has happened. In the first two cases the electoral college likely frustrated the fraud (solid south disenfranchisement) and in one it facilitated the fraud (Cheney voting machine hacking)."
So . . . I failed to provide my friend's nuance in my earlier post, and I thought you might find the above interesting. I myself know very little history of the electoral college and my interest has been aroused by that of you and other posters like Iconoclast. As is apparent from the quote above, my friend thinks that doing away with the electoral college will be insufficient without also addressing corruption, like the voting machine hacking and gerrymandering. As I recall, you have expressed concerns about these issues, as well.
