There are many aspects of our constitutional form of government that cause confusion. One such area is the Electoral College.
When we vote to elect a President the first Tuesday of November every four years, we’re not selecting that individual directly. Rather, we’re voting for a slate of electors who will represent our state and select the President. But before we go too far, let’s see what the Framers’ were considering at the 1787 Convention and why they made the decisions they made.
Debating the Presidency
Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph proposed the Office of the President as part of the Virginia Plan. Under this plan, the Executive Branch’s role was to negotiate treaties, conduct foreign policy, have command over the military, enforce the laws passed by Congress, and perform other ministerial duties. The President would be the head of the Executive Branch.
But what the Office of the President really looked like needed to be settled.
There were several proposals. Alexander Hamilton thought the President should be elected to serve for life, contingent on “good behavior.” This proposal was given little thought, because America’s primary reason for seeking independence was avoiding the tyranny of King George III.
Another idea was to have the presidency be a multi-person council that would make decisions by consensus. That, too, was dismissed as being too unwieldy to carry out the Executive’s responsibilities. Therefore, it finally was determined that a sole individual should hold the position of President.
How should the President be selected? Delegate Elbridge Gerry moved that the President should be elected by state governors. He thought each state should have the same number of votes as representatives in Congress.
Gerry’s rationale was simple: representatives were selected by the people and senators were appointed by state legislatures, so why shouldn’t the President be selected by the governors?
William Paterson from New Jersey argued against this plan, opining that the President would not have the support of the people. There also was a fear of collusion if only state governors selected the President, since they would be able to remove the President at any time. Therefore, this proposal was rejected.
Pennsylvania’s delegate James Wilson (a proponent of a sole executive) proposed the President be elected by direct election. The concern here was that major population centers would determine the presidency.
The President of the United States is a national office. If a president was chosen by a handful of major cities or regions, the results of the election may not be considered legitimate by a large portion of the country. Does this sound familiar?
Another proposal was to have Congress select the President. This option would constitute a national election in the aggregate, since Congress was to be elected by a series of state elections.
However, it would give Congress too much power over the Executive Branch. It would allow Congress to remove a President under extreme circumstances through the impeachment process, as well as exert influence over the President. Because this proposal would destroy the separation of powers, it also was rejected.
The Final Decision
The delegates finally decided it was best to incorporate parts of each proposal into the presidential election process. Having disparate components would help decrease the likelihood of election manipulation and fraud, maintaining the integrity of the process.
The citizens of each state would participate in a direct election for the president by popular vote. The results of the state election would not select the president directly but would be used to elect a slate of electors.
The state legislatures would determine their state’s election laws and how these electors would be chosen. The number of electors for each state would equal their number of representatives in Congress, plus their two senators. This would give larger states the benefit of proportionality and benefit smaller states by having an equal number of senators.
If no candidate received at least half the available electors, the process would fall to Congress. The House of Representatives would select the President and the Senate would select the Vice President.
As you can see, this combination of several proposals involved the voters, state governments, and federal government in the electoral process. You might notice the judiciary did not have a role in this process, other than settling constitutional disputes that may arise. This was intentional, because the judiciary is not directly accountable to the people.
No system is perfect, but this process minimized the likelihood of fraud.
Everything worked well in the first two elections with George Washington winning in 1788 and 1792. However, a problem soon was realized.
In the election of 1796, John Adams won the presidency with his political rival Thomas Jefferson being elected Vice President. In 1800 Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr finished tied in the Electoral College. The election, therefore, deferred to Congress. Thomas Jefferson was finally elected President by the House of Representatives on the thirty-sixth ballot.
These events led to the proposal and ratification of the 12th Amendment. From then on, a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate would run together on the same ticket. The Electoral College votes applied to both candidates on their party’s ticket.
Today, there are efforts to alter, negate, or abolish the Electoral College. One such effort is the National Popular Vote initiative (NPV). This effort proposes an interstate compact where a state’s electors would be awarded to whomever wins the national popular vote.
There are several issues with this. One, smaller states would be subjugated to the larger states. And, looking at the electoral map the last few cycles, major population centers tend to be Democratic majority regions. Most of the rest of the country is solidly Republican.
Imagine Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City dictating how Missouri’s electors are awarded. Missouri’s voice and interests in selecting our president would be eliminated, because these are areas in which we have little in common. It is also very likely the NPV initiative is unconstitutional. Convention of States endorser and constitutional scholar Robert Natelson goes into greater detail here.
Constitutional education is one focus of the Convention of States Project. If we understand why our government is structured the way it is and the reasoning behind it, we all can be effective advocates for the Constitution.
If you’d like to learn more on this and other topics, visit www.conventionofstates.com and go to our Resources page. The only way we can restore the Constitution and preserve our republic is through grassroots involvement.
If you’re ready to dig in and fight for liberty, check out our Take Action page and get involved. It’s free! All it takes is time and a passion to sustain the blessings of liberty.
In liberty,
Brett
Past Blog Posts
