When the American Framers met to construct the Constitution in the summer of 1787, they had many difficult issues to wrestle with and they were clearly aware of what was at stake. One of the thorniest issues was how to choose who would lead the Executive Branch of government, that is, the President.
The office they were creating was unique and had no true precedent. The executive was never meant to be a monarch, nor was he (or, someday, she) meant to be like a Prime Minister. They wanted the President to be independent of Congress so that he would neither be their “lackey,” nor would he be impotent in his attempts to thwart them should they get out of control (as had many of the state legislatures in the period between the Revolution and Constitution). At the same time, they also didn’t want the President to be directly elected by a nationwide popular vote. The Framers did not eschew democracy, but they did believe it needed to be limited. The last thing they wanted for President was for the kind of people who merely flattered the mobs and won popularity contests to win the office. They wanted a more “refined” selection process.
Their solution was the electoral college. Its emergence at the Constitutional Convention need not be rehearsed here, but it seemed to many as a good idea at the time.
The Electoral College is outlined in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, but the basics are as follows: Each state can, in whatever way it chooses, appoint electors on that state’s behalf to cast votes for President. How many electors can the state appoint? They all have at least 3 and the way they do it is to add the number of Senators (always 2) plus the number of representatives. Smaller states like Wyoming only have 1 representative and so they have 3 electoral votes. California has the most representatives, so they get 55 votes. These electors then all meet on the same day in their respective state capitols and cast one vote for President and one vote for vice president. Initially, they just case 1 vote and whoever won was President and whoever was 2nd was VP. But they failed to account for parties, so you had this awkward moment where John Adams becomes President and Jefferson is VP but they’re in separate parties. Then, in 1800, you end up with a tie between Jefferson and his dang “running mate,” Aaron Burr, so the election goes to the House which chooses Jefferson (thanks, in part, to Hamilton’s influence).
The hope was that these electors, however they would be chosen (a decision left up to the states, remember), would make decisions based on what they believed was best for their state and the country as a whole. They were meant to remain anonymous until right beforehand and all meet in different places at the same time so that they would be more difficult to bribe, threaten, etc. Relatively early in American history, though, the states began using popular elections to select who the electors would vote for. In general – but not always – the electors would vote for whoever won the largest number of votes in their state. The electors could, potentially, vote against their state’s results. This is referred to as being a “faithless elector,” and is rare. The most showed up in 2016. States have created laws to dissuade faithless electors with fines and even imprisonment. In a recent Supreme Court case challenging these penalties, the Court upheld the states’ practice (to my surprise, actually). And the electors themselves typically follow the state results. The custom now is that the Republican and Democratic Parties choose the electors if their candidate wins the state and the state legislature approves of their slate of electors.
There’s much more to say here and there’s no shortage of criticism and elaboration online. Everyone hates the electoral college these days – especially if their favored candidate loses. But few stop to think about the consequences of the alternatives like the national popular vote. Will that process get the KIND of Presidents you want? That’s what the Framers focused on: the independent and dependent variables, as it were. The electoral college isn’t perfect, and I would argue it has picked some awful people. But why would a directly elected President be better? How would minor party candidates impact the process…possibly creating a situation where the winner doesn’t get a majority of the vote? That was what happened to Lincoln, for example.
I don’t want to belabor this point, but I do want to emphasize that the electoral college is the Constitutionally designated way in which the President is chosen. There is no appeal from this. It could be abolished or amended via the Amendment/Repeal process, but if Trump loses today (as he most certainly will), then it’s over. The continued lawsuits and disregard for the rule of law is exposed as contempt for the Constitution. Do I think voter fraud occurred? Yes, though I think more of the issues were due to human error and poor election management and messaging by state officials. But I have yet to see anything indicating enough fraud to actually change the result. Instead, I see a bunch of politicians and lawyers scoring political points and scamming people out of money to pay for their efforts. It’s as ridiculous as Democrats’ obsession with the “Russian collusion” garbage. But as long conspiracies make money, they’re not going anywhere.
I really think the best thing we can do is follow the Constitution and the rule of law rather than picking and choosing what to follow based on partisan wishes. The Constitution is not “whatever the party wants it to be.” The less we understand and respect the Constitution, and the less we can rely on democratic processes to choose leaders and make decisions, the more people will turn to either apathy or violence to get their way. Neither path is a positive option for a country that wishes to remain free and peaceful.
So let us pray that today’s meeting of the electoral college across all the state capitols takes place without incident. Pray for these individuals, and pray the country and its leadership embraces the results and the consequences.
Comments are closed.