DEFINED: the Electoral College system [on topic]

[dmcoco84 5]

The method of appointing the President of the United States is seemingly the only important part of the Constitution that has not been severely criticized by opponents of the document. In fact, it received the slightest amount of approval from critics who have begrudgingly admitted that the election of the President is fairly well protected. (1) I would go even further and note that if the method is not perfect, it is at the very least excellent as it, in a rather noteworthy fashion, combines all the advantages we could possibly desire in the process. (2)

Obviously, it was desirable that the People have a large role in choosing the person who will be delegated a public trust as important as the Presidency. This has been accomplished by giving the right to make such a decision not to any pre-existing body, but to men chosen by the People at the right time for this specific and unique purpose. It was equally desirable that the election of the President be made by men who are capable of analyzing the qualities needed for such an office, and who are able to cast their votes under circumstances favoring both a discussion and thoughtful consideration of the reasons and motives affecting their choice. It would be likely that a small number of people who had been selected by their fellow citizens to carry out such a complicated investigation will possess the information and wisdom required to do so.

It was also desirable to protect the process (as much as possible) against turmoil or disorder, considering it is the process that picks an Executive who plays a vital role in the administration of government. Fortunately, the new Constitution combines many precautions to protect this process against potential problems: The election of several people, who make up an intermediate body of Electors will elect the President, and this group will be less likely to arouse violent or tumultuous reactions in the community than the direct election of a single person. And since these Electors will be chosen in each state, and will cast their votes in the state in which they are chosen, the election of the President will be detached and sprawled out to help protect the Electors against the reactions or the violence of the People more effectively than if they were all in the same place at one time.

Nothing, however, is more desirable than placing every practical obstacle possible in the way of secret plotting, intrigue, or corruption. While it might be expected that the dangerous adversaries of republican government would reveal themselves from more than one place, the primary danger would come from the desire of foreign powers to gain an inappropriate level of influence in our government. How could they achieve this goal any better than by raising one of their own citizens to the Presidency of the United States? But the Convention guarded against such dangers with the wisest and most appropriate foresight and attention. Instead of referring the appointment of the President to pre-existing bodies of men, whose votes could have been tampered with beforehand, they have referred the choice to the People of America first, who will decide for themselves specific people whose temporary and sole purpose is to appoint the President.

Thus, without corrupting the People, those elected to carry out the appointment of the President will begin their task without any corrupt bias. They will only exist for a short time, and they will be spread out throughout each of the states, both of which give us satisfactory reasons to believe that the Electors will complete their task without falling under the influence of any bias. The task of corrupting large numbers of men would require both time and means, and it would be difficult (with all them dispersed over 13 states) to convince them to take one side or another. This may not technically be "corruption," but nonetheless it distracts them from carrying out their duty. Just as important, the President will be in a position to rely on everyone except the People for continuing in his office. Otherwise, he might be tempted to sacrifice his duty for the sake of pleasing those who elected him into office in the first place. This will be avoided by making his reelection dependent on the same special body of representatives (the Electors) who will be chosen by society for the sole purpose of making this important choice.

The Plan devised by the Convention combines all of these advantages together by requiring that each state choose a particular number of people as Electors, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives of that state in the Federal government. They will then assemble within that state and vote for the person they believe is most qualified to be President. (3) Once their votes are cast, the votes will be sent to the seat of the Federal government (the Capital), and whoever happens to have a majority of the votes will become President. Since one man might not always receive the majority of votes, and since it might be unsafe to allow less than a majority to make the final decision, the House of Representatives, in such a contingency, would be required to choose from among the candidates with the five highest numbers of votes the man who, in their opinion, would be best qualified for the office of President. (4)

This process of election will provide us with a moral certainty that the Presidency will seldom be occupied by anyone not eminently qualified for it. It may be possible, and even sufficient, for someone who has a gift for political maneuvering and intrigue, as well as the petty desire to be popular, to rise to the highest office of a single state (i.e., governor); but it will require completely different talents and different kinds of qualities in order to earn the necessary respect and confidence of the whole Union (or of a large enough portion of it) in order to become a viable candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that this office is likely to be filled by men of superior ability and virtue, and this should be considered no small accomplishment on the part of the Constitution, which recognizes how important a role the Executive has in the administration of every government, either for good or bad.

While we cannot accept the political heresy of the poet who declares:

For forms of government, let fools contest... That which is best administered, is best (5)

we can at least safely conclude that the true test of a good government is its ability and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice President will be chosen in the same way as the President, with the only difference being that the Senate will do the same thing with respect to the Vice President as the House of Representatives does with the President (should that ever happen). (6) One of the useless and mischievous objections to this proposition is that an unusual person will be chosen as Vice President. It has also been alleged that it would have been preferable for the Senate to elect one of its own to fill the position of Vice President. However, two points seem to justify the ideas that the Convention used in this respect. The first is that in order to secure a conclusive decision by the Senate, it would be necessary for the president of the Senate to cast a vote, not a tie-breaking vote. (7) And making the Senator of one state the president of the Senate would be the same as that state exchanging a constant ability to vote with only the occasional and contingent ability to vote. The second point is that as the Vice President may occasionally act as a substitute for the President, all of the reasons that support the method of election used for the President should apply with great, if not equal, force to the election of the Vice President. (8)

Again, it is simply remarkable that in this example, as well as in most of the others, the objections made against the proposed Constitution could just as easily have been made against the constitution of New York. For example, we have a lieutenant-governor who is chosen by the People at large, who presides over the state's senate, and acts as the constitutional substitute for the governor in situations which are similar to the ones which, under the new Constitution, would authorize the Vice President to exercise the authorities and carry out the duties of the President.


- Publius

NUMBER 68

http://constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm


1. This is a reference to the admission on the part of "Federal Farmer," which was the pen name of an Anti-Federalist writer who wrote an important and methodical examination of the proposed Constitution. The assessment consisted of two pamphlets, the first of which was published in November 1787, and the second in May 1788. They were addressed to "The Republican" (which was most likely New York governor George Clinton), and some scholars have suggested that the "Federalist Farmer" was possibly either Richard Henry Lee (1732-94), Virginian statesman who was most famous for calling for a resolution of independence during the Second Continental Congress, which resolution ultimately became the Declaration of Independence; or Melancton Smith (1744-98), a New York delegate to the Continental Congress who made many of the same arguments as the Federal Farmer to the New York state ratification convention at Poughkeepsie in 1788. (Ultimately, Smith voted in favor of the Constitution with amendments.)

2. A reference to the Electoral College system; United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clauses 2-4.

3. United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clause 3.

4. Ibid.

5. Alexander Pope (1688-1744), An Essay on Man. The original reads: "For forms of government let fools contest / whate'er is best administer'd is best" (Epistle 3, lines 303-4).

6. United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clause 3.

7. United States Constitution: Article I, Section 3, clause 5.

8. United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clause 6.

[jakee 1,597]

Interesting how that's completely different to the way things work.

Was that your point?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,151]

Nice plagiarism of Glenn Beck's words.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dmcoco84 5]

Completely...?

We do still have the Electoral College, Yes?

However yes, many things have unwisely changed. Like the 17th Amendment...

The point is, the Electoral College is being said to be a problem, outdated and so on ...people seem to agree... yet those same people don't even know its original structure, or the ideas and reasons behind its structure, clear from their arguments against it.


I am absolutely against ending the Electoral College.

[jakee 1,597]

Quote

Completely...?

Yes.

Quote

We do still have the Electoral College, Yes?

Not like that.

Quote

The point is, the Electoral College is being said to be a problem, outdated and so on ...people seem to agree... yet those same people don't even know its original structure, or the ideas and reasons behind its structure, clear from their arguments against it.

It's original idea, structure, or the reasons behind are no longer reasons to order.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

It's original idea, structure, or the reasons behind are no longer reasons to order.

Quote

After clarifying PM: What I meant was that the original thinking behind the electoral college is no longer a reason to either keep it or disband it since the current operation of it is very different from that original intent. (At least, the intent laid out in that letter)

The current operation of our Republic alone, is FAR from original intent.
(That is putting it lightly, we are not a Constitutional Republic, we have not been for a very long time.)

And it needs to be, Restored.

The point of posting this, is to understand what the original intent was, why it was set up that way (the study of history that went into it), and then restoring it (reversing the errors in judgment or intentional changes meant to break down the structure of the Constitution and original intent) and tweaking it if necessary.

Those on this board, who have stated desire to go to a direct election... could not explain the original intent, and further, have not learned from history.

And it has clearly worked just fine, in its current capacity, in this election too...

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Do you ever get pissed off that you weren't born 200 years ago? You seem so single-minded about turning back the clock.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 3,120]

>The current operation of our Republic alone, is FAR from original intent.

From which source would you derive its original intent? The Constitution, or an earlier set of documents?

>And it needs to be, Restored.

What could you change to restore it to closer to your vision of its original intent?

[dmcoco84 5]

The wording on that is a little strange... but:

How about a later set of documents... from Publius.



Not sure how to answer that... I did say we are not a Constitutional Republic anymore. That document is mostly, ignored.

Are you looking for me to explain how the Federal Government is overstepping the limited powers it was given (Constitutional Limits - Federalism), or what I would change back that has been legally change, like with Amendments.

But ah, that's kinda off topic.