The Electoral College – as “amended”

In our first article about the Electoral College, we tried to develop the thinking we believed the Founding Fathers employed in devising the system. There can be no question but what they considered the selection of a President and Vice President as a singularly important undertaking. With the purpose of “selecting the best qualified individuals for the positions”, they devised the unique situation whereby the “electors” of each state have no other function than to nominate the person (or persons) they consider most qualified for the position. The electors were to have been either appointed by a state’s legislature or voted upon by the citizens of the state.

One thing was absolutely clear in the original: the states were to elect the President and Vice-president as sovereign entities (Art. II, Sec. 1, §2). Citizen participation was at the will of the state’s legislature. There was no such thing as a “popular election”. This was intentional, the Framers believing that it should be a careful, thoughtful deliberative process in order to be sure of selecting the most qualified person for the position.

However, almost immediately upon the ratification of the Constitution, the desire to “change the system” began circulating. The XIIth Amendment sought to clarify the selection of the individual for President and the one for Vice President. Now distinct lists for each office were to be prepared by the electors appointed in each state. The prohibition against the two citizens coming from the same state was continued. The other details were left untouched.

The Founding Fathers idea of an independent body of electors disappeared with the arrival of the political parties. Political parties began offering their own “slate of electors” for each state with electors pledged to vote for a specific individual of the party’s choice. Rarely did an elector “break ranks”. In fact, several states passed laws binding an elector to the result of the popular vote. Thus, the deliberative process of individual citizens thoughtfully selecting someone considered best qualified to be an “elector” was thwarted by the appearance of the political parties.

Each state legislature had the power and authority to determine the method by which their electors would be chosen. The legislature could appoint them directly or allow the citizens to cast votes for individual electors. In 1788, Pennsylvania began allowing its citizens to vote for presidential electors. Today, all states follow this procedure.

An important sidelight is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Bush v. Gore 2000) that a state legislature could take back the power to appoint electors at any time. This overrode a state having previously installed the practice of allowing the citizens to vote for such electors.

Two other amendments, XXth and XXVth address the question of possible problems when an elected President dies prior to taking office. In both, the conclusion was reached that the “elected Vice President” should immediately take over.

While there have not been any amendments that sought to abolish the Electoral College, it can be seen that the original intent of such a body has been completely eviscerated by the actions of the political parties. The Founding Fathers never contemplated the inordinate growth of such organizations nor the power they could wield in shaping the discourse surrounding the selection of a President and Vice President. Gone almost completely is the knowledge that the states elect the President and Vice President and not the citizens per se. Mass media and political barnstorming serve to persuade the citizen to vote for a particular candidate, at times irrespective of the individual’s qualifications for the position.

The question remains: could the original intent still work or has the process become so manipulated, that it focuses more on political showmanship and financial backing?