As I review H.J.Res.7 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college, I want to thank Rep Steve Cohen from Tennessee’s 9th district. If the people who hired him to represent them want to abolish the electoral college, the only proper way to do it is through a constitutional amendment. So thank you, Mr. Cohen, for following the law.
The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
― G. K. Chesterton
I frequently hear this quote paraphrased as “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.” That is wise advice. So before we decide to take down the electoral college, we should find out why it was put there in the first place. Let’s do that by looking at the reasons Mr. Cohen put in his legislation.
Whereas the Founders of the Nation established the electoral college in an era of limited nationwide communication and information sharing;
Whereas the development of mass media and the Internet has made information about Presidential candidates easily accessible to United States citizens across the country and around the world;
Whereas citizens now have a far better chance of knowing about out-of-State Presidential candidates than about Presidential electors from their home State;
These facts are true, but are they relevant to the question at hand? This presupposes that the purpose of the electoral college is to compensate for the travel and news restrictions of the time. In other words, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention thought the people should elect the President, but the technology of the times have now made that unnecessary.
While both Hamilton and Madison thought the best solution was for the people to vote by congressional district, they were to vote for electors to represent them in the presidential election.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by 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. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Alexander Hamilton – Federalist #68
So why did Alexander Hamilton believe it desirable that the actual election for President, what he refers to as the “immediate election”, should be made by a small number of persons? A group that would deliberate and come to a judicious and reasonable decision about who should hold the office of President?
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Alexander Hamilton – Federalist #68
One reason for the electoral college then, was to help ensure that the person elected to the Presidency would have both the moral character and the qualifications needed for the position. A popular person may persuade a state or region to vote for them, but for the President to be effective, they must garner the confidence of the entire nation or, at the least, a large part of it. So, how was this grand selection to come about?
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
The plan was simple: The people of each state would choose people to represent them (electors) in the Presidential elections. Since these electors met in their individual states, I do not see how this process would mitigate the concerns Mr. Cohen said the delegates had about knowledge of out-of-state candidates. If you think about it, this process is similar to the way the people select Representatives to Congress to write laws. And there’s a reason for this:
I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed & adopted; and was exchanged for the general ticket & the Legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example.
Letter from Madison to Hay 1823
During the debates in the Constitutional Convention, it was first suggested that the President be elected by Congress.
“The executive power of the U–S–shall be vested in a single person. His stile shall be “The President of the U–S. of America” and his title shall be “His Excellency”. He shall be elected by ballot by the Legislature. He shall hold his office during the term of seven years; but shall not be elected a second time.
…
Mr. Govr Morris opposed the election of the President by the Legislature. He dwelt on the danger of rendering the Executive uninterested in maintaining the rights of his Station, as leading to Legislative tyranny
Farrand’s Records –MADISON Friday August 24. 1787. In Convention
There were several reason given why this would be problematic. The separation of powers would be compromised by making the executive dependent on the legislative. Also, the question of a fair impeachment trial was brought up, since the same group that elected the President would be asked to impeach and potentially try him. (It had yet to be determined if an impeachment would be tried by the Senate or the supreme Court.) Gouvernor Morris proposed a solution:
To guard against all these evils he moved that the President “shall be chosen by Electors to be chosen by the people of the several States”
Farrand’s Records –MADISON Friday August 24. 1787. In Convention
Notice, the people were not voting for President, but for Electors who would, according to Hamilton, analyze, deliberate, and then choose the President. Eventually, a compromise between the states led to the language in the Constitution.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2
Each state’s electors are appointed, not elected, in whatever manner their legislature decides. While it appears from Madison’s letter that the selection of electors by district was preferred, putting the decision on how to appoint electors in the hands of the state legislatures was a necessary compromise to counter plans of some of the states for the President to be elected by the House of Representatives. I have found nowhere in this debate the desire to put the election of the President into the hands of the people directly. The closest to this idea of the people even being involved in the election is the proposal by Gouvernor Morris that presidential electors be chosen by the people of the states. This idea that the electoral college was created because the people would not know the candidates appears to be false on its face.
Originally, almost all of the states chose their electors by their legislature. During the early 19th century, most state legislatures decided to choose electors by a popular vote of the citizens of their states. In other words, when people voted, it was not for Presidential candidates, but for local people whom they trusted to represent them wisely. During this time, the influence of political parties grew, leading to more emphasis being placed on who, or more accurately, which party the elector pledged to vote for, instead of who the elector was. Rather than choosing men and women who would deliberate over the selection of the President, the states turned the election into a popularity contest among the parties and their chosen candidates. As party influence grew, states adopted laws legally binding electors to the candidates or party they pledged to support.
Whereas the electoral college is premised on an antiquated theory that citizens will have a better chance of knowing about electors from their home States than about Presidential candidates from out of State;
What we’ve seen from the debates and Hamilton’s commentary is that the electoral college was not based on the knowledge of the citizenry but an attempt to insure both the integrity and national support for the person elected. I wonder if Mr. Cohen would place a similar test on his role as a member of the House of Representatives? If we do not need representatives to choose our President, do we need them to make our laws?
Whereas the 15th Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to vote regardless of race;
Whereas the 19th Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to vote regardless of gender;
Whereas the 26th Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens 18 years of age and older to vote regardless of age;
These are all non-sequiturs, as they have nothing to do with the electoral college.
Whereas since the Nation’s founding, United States citizens have amended the Constitution to expand the opportunity for citizens to directly elect their elected leaders;
Whereas the 17th Amendment establishes both a precedent and a preference for the direct election of citizens’ elected representatives
Only once has the Constitution been amended to allow the citizens to directly elect people to offices they had not originally held. The 17th Amendment changed the way Senators were chosen, from state legislatures to state elections. This amendment effectively removed any influence states had in the creation of federal legislation. In effect, it weakened the republic by diminishing the role of the states in the union. No longer did federal legislation have to be approved by the representatives of both the people and the states since the Senate was effectively transformed into another house of representatives.
While the 17th Amendment did establish a precedent for direct elections, I see little evidence that it established a preference. The debate around the 17th Amendment shows the primary concern was that state legislatures might delay their selection of Senators and decrease their representation in the Senate. The was a rare and self-correcting problem at best, and many have come to see the downside of subverting the individual state’s sovereignty to the national influence of direct elections.
Whereas the electoral college has become an anachronism
The electoral college is not an anachronism, it is an important part of our system of checks and balances for the structure of our federal government. Therefore, the real problem is that the college has not been allowed to function as designed. Rather than choosing wise people to find and select a President, the states have turned their process off choosing electors into a political beauty pageant, complete with the swimsuit, evening gown, and dreaded talent competition. Political parties have been allowed to control the show and dictate to the people who they can vote for, and it seems only one group thinks the electoral college no longer has a place: Those who have lost Presidential elections.
Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.
So why shouldn’t the President be elected by the people of the United States of America? First, it continues to degrade the republic, marching us further and further toward a direct democracy. That was something our founders feared greatly, enough to enshrine a republican form of government in the Constitution.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4
So why would such a vaunted political structure like democracy be feared?
Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history.
John Adams
It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
Alexander Hamilton
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths
James Madison
Why did our Founding Fathers fear direct democracy? Because they had studied history and had seen its effects. Democracies do not protect the people’s rights, but are subject to the whim of whomever can get enough people to sign on. They lead not to domestic tranquility, but to turmoil, strife, and conflict as those with different opinions fight and argue not in a structured forum like Congress, but on every street corner and before every citizen. And once the energy behind a democracy expends itself, it quickly devolves into tyranny. While Mr. Cohen and his constituents may not know it, this is the future they are proposing for America.
The second reason to avoid a popular election for President are the powers delegated to him or her. If we look at the powers delegated to the office we see not a representative of the people, but of the states. Read Article II Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, and you see that there are two main roles for the President: The execution of federal laws and the representation of the union of states, primarily in foreign affairs. Most of the power delegated to the President revolve around these two roles, with some administrative and ceremonial powers as well. The appointment of ambassadors, officers, and judges has to be done with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the representatives of the states. The same with the signing of treaties. Even his role as Commander-in-Chief is limited by Congress’ power to make rules for the military. The only reason the President today has any impact on most everyday Americans is Congress’ abdication of their responsibility to make laws by asking the executive branch to effectively legislate through regulation.
And third, a national popular election for President places the decision in a few small regions of the nation. While the election may technically be nation-wide, it would effectively be decided in a handful of population centers on the coasts. Politically, the term “flyover country” would be even more accurate, since the candidates for President would have little if any reason to visit the vast majority of the nation. The President may be popular in those regions, but they would instill little, if any, confidence in the nation as a whole. This would have the effect of further dividing and polarizing not only the political debate, but national debates as well. How well do you think your rights will be protected by a person who has no reason to care if you vote for them or not?
So rather than trying to turn America into more of a democracy, why don’t we try to understand why our Founding Fathers initially created it as a republic? And before we clear away the protection of our rights and the sovereignty of our states, we should understand why it is there in the first place. Let us, as Chesterton suggests, tell those who wish to change our nation because they do not understand it to “Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
