(Instructor/Professor)
The Founding Fathers were faced with an uncommon dilemma: how to come up with an acceptable formula to elect a president. At the time, the fledgling nation was built around thirteen jurisdictions both large and small and extremely protective to preserve their own rights and wary of a proposed national, centralized form of government. In addition, the people were aware of the statements of political analysts that political parties were involved only in committing criminal activities. With the people of the new state suspicious of the central government, the Fathers were faced with a problem of how to elect a president independent of the factors of political alliance, without the factor of being able to mount an aggressive and extensive nationwide campaign, and more importantly, maintain the balance of the powers of the Presidency and that of the states, and Congress and the combination of the states and the President on the other (Kimberling 1).
The 1787 Constitutional Convention scrutinized a number of processes of appointing the President; among the methods contemplated by the Convention included election by the US Congress, by the governors of the various states, by the state lawmaking bodies, by a select group of lawmakers, and by popular vote. By the latter stages of the summit, the issue was referred to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, the body that constructed the present form of the Electoral College. The proposal met with across-the-board approval among the representatives, was integrated into the final draft of the paper with some minor alterations. The provision sought to harmonize the varying state as well as Federal interests in the issue. It offered a level of the opinion of the population in the electoral process and accord the less populated an enhanced level of participation by giving “senatorial electors,” safeguard the independence of Congress and the presidency, and isolate the electoral structure from political machinations (History 1).
The College of Electors was established by the Fathers in the US Constitution as an accommodation between the proposals of electing the President by way of a Congressional vote and a “popular vote” by a group of eminent citizens. Withal, it must be noted that the term “electoral college” will not be seen in the Constitution; the term indicates “electors” as mentioned in Article II as well as in the 12th Amendment in the US Constitution. As the Electoral System mechanism is a component of the original construction of the Constitution, changing the system would require the passing of a Constitutional amendment to change the process.
It must also be noted that the 12th Amendment as well as the use of the mechanism of the “popular vote” in the jurisdiction of the states as the structure of appointing the electors has significantly altered the system. Over the years, more than 700 legislative proposals have been submitted in Congress to restructure or remove the Electoral College. In fact, legislative proposals on changing the Electoral College system have accounted for the majority of the proposals submitted to Congress than on any other topic combined. One of the biggest critics of the system, the American Bar Association, has called the system obsolete and vague; 7 out of 10 of the group’s members were in favor of dismantling the system altogether (U.S Electoral College 1).
The operation of the Electoral College in picking the President and Vice President can be likened to the College of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy in choosing the Pope. The original premise for that was that the most wise and educated individuals from each of the jurisdictions would be given the right to choose the president on the factors of merit and regardless of the state or political affiliation. The construction of the College is derived from the “Centurial Assembly” during the time of the Roman Republic. In this system, the Roman men were segregated in terms of their wealth into sections of 100, or “centuries.” The groups were given the right to cast one vote on matters referred to them by the Roman Senate (Kimberling 1).
The Constitution stipulates that the election of the President as well as the Vice President is to be conducted every four years by a select group of individuals identified as the “presidential electors.” In the operation of the Constitution, the states are allotted one delegate to the College for every representative in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. At present, there are 538 electoral votes in the College. The number equates to the collective number of the members of the United States House of Representatives (435) and the members of the Senate of the United States (100). In addition, three members of the Electoral College are allotted to the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment. Every decade, the votes in the College are redistributed between the states based in the Federal survey; in this action, the votes are systematically redistributed among the jurisdictions in the country (National Popular Vote 1).
Candidates vying for the office of President are given his/her own set of electors; these are selected by the party of the candidate; however, state policies differ on the process of selecting the electors as well as their responsibilities and powers (U.S. Electoral College 1). The parties endorse persons for the position of elector commonly done in a party summit in the state, or in smaller conventions such as the meeting of the party’s leadership in the state. In essence, the voters select the electors and the electors determine who will be selected as the president and the vice president. In majority of the states, the voters cast their votes for a list of electors committed to the candidate/s chosen by the voting public in the state. The list that garners the most number of votes is chosen. This is the “winner takes all” system in the state (History 1).
The inability of the people to directly elect the President and Vice President while reaffirming the practice of the Electoral College is seen in the 1892 McPherson v Blacker; however, the controversy on the College has seen a more recent case in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision. In this decision, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the concept that the citizenry “have no Federal constitutional right to vote for President or Vice President or for their state’s members of the Electoral College (National Popular Vote 1).
The agency of the Office of the Federal Registrar directs the operation of the College on behalf of various entities, such as the states, Congress, the citizens, and the Archivist of the United States. The agency operates as a mediator between the governors and the secretaries of state of the various jurisdictions and Congress. It also acts as the “trusted agent” in reviewing between the House and the Senate and records them as proof of the action of the Senate (U.S. Electoral College 1).
The Founding Fathers were apprehensive of the option of a direct vote system to determine the President and the Vice President. At the time, there were no official political organizations, and there was no mechanism to choose and to restrict the number of candidates. Furthermore, travelling and communications were hard; even though the candidate is supremely qualified and known in the region, but remain unknown in the other parts of the country. If there were a large number of candidates coming from one region, this would tend to divide the vote and thus will not be reflective of the collective will of the United States.
Should the decision be given to Congress, this would require that the legislators accurately gage the sentiments of their respective jurisdictions and to vote according to that sentiment. This scenario could be better resolved by direct elections, as the previous scenario could be more indicative of the personal interests and party objectives of the lawmakers instead of the will of the people (Longley 2).
The electors gather within their respective jurisdictions on Monday after the second Wednesday in the month of December. The electors are committed and assumed, but not obligated, to cast their votes for the parties these represent. Individual balloting is conducted for the offices of President and Vice President. After the voting is finished, the College ceases to function as a body. The votes cast are recorded by a joint Congressional session, conducted on the 6th of January of the following year after the election (History 1).
The mandate to meet “in their respective [jurisdictions]” was geared to prevent maneuvering the results of the election by making the electors convene together, but separating the two bodies. The Congress is the agency that sets the dates that the College will meet, and gather at the state capitol or in the state legislature. The outcome of the elections is then authorized, and copies of the results are transmitted to the Vice President in his capacity as the President of the Senate of the United States. In addition, copies are sent to the state’s Secretary of State, the United States Archivist, and the Federal district judge of the court where the electors gathered. After the performance of this duty, the College ceases to exist and will again be reconvened until the next presidential electoral exercise (History 1).
In case the candidates do not receive a clear majority, then the House of Representatives is tasked with electing the President, and the Vice President is chosen by the Senate. This process is called “contingent election (History 1). Nor constitutional or Federal statutes compel the electors to vote only for the candidate that sent them to the College. However, one-half of US states have adopted laws that obligate the electors to vote for the candidate of the party should that candidate garner the majority of the votes in their jurisdiction (Huffington Post 1). If the House fails to select a President by Inauguration Day, then the Vice President-elect will serve as the acting Chief Executive until such time that the impasse is resolved.
Deadlocks are mathematically improbable even in smaller jurisdictions; however, if the popular vote in a state is a deadlock between two candidates, the applicative law in the state would be used in determining the process to be used in resolving the impasse. A stalemate would not be seen until November or December; a recount would have to be done and then the Secretary of State would endorse the outcome of the elections. Federal statutes permit states to hold “run-off’” elections to determine the winner in the state (U.S. Electoral College 1).
Works Cited
History, “Electoral College”, A.E. Television Networks. 2015. Web. 24 July 2015 <http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college>
Huffington Post, “What is the Electoral College? How it works and why it matters.” Huff Post. Article. 2012. Web. 24 July 2015 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html>
Kimberling, William C., “The Electoral College,” Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. 2008. Web. 24 July 2015. <http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php>
Longley, Robert, “The Electoral College System,” About.com. 2015. Article. 24 July 2015 <http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm>
National Popular Vote, , “The Electoral College,” National Popular Vote. N.date. Article. 24 July 2015 <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/electoralcollege.php>
U.S Electoral College, “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 2012. 24 July 2015 <http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html>
