The Electoral College -- Why we have it, part 1
Because I expect (1) a flurry of stories in the news over the next few weeks about the Electoral College, and (2) politicians of either stripe criticizing the Electoral College as an antiquated feature of our Constitution that needs to be abolished, it is helpful to examine why we have the Electoral College and the function it is designed to serve in our republic.
Following the Revolutionary War, the newly independent states organized under Articles of Confederation. The Articles did not provide for an executive, and were deficient in a number of other means. The Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution was called only to review the Articles and recommend any necessary changes to improve their efficiency.When the delegates met in Philadelphia, they undertook the design of an entirely new system of government. One faction proposed having the Legislature choose the executive. Those opposed to this idea were concerned that such a consolidation of power in the Legislature could lead to a type of monarchy similar to that which the states had recently become independent. Eventually, the task of determining how to select an executive was assigned to a Committee of Eleven -- James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, Nicholas Gilman, Rufus King, David Brearley, John Dickinson, Daniel Carroll, Hugh Williamson, Pierce Butler, and Abraham Baldwin. The design crafted by this Committee, with few amendments, was the Electoral College.
Federalist 39, written by James Madison, a member of the Committee of Eleven, explains the Founders' intent in crafting the legislative and executive branches. He first explains the character of the Constitution, and the method of its ratification:
"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors -- the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation -- is obvious from this simple consideration: that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution."
It was important for the Framers to emphasize that the new Constitution created a limited central government. The states, as sovereign entities in their own right, would retain all authority not expressly ceded to the federal government in the Constitution. In this respect, the Constitution created a dual sovereignty, as the federal government had certain clearly defined powers, and the states remained sovereign entities joined by compact with each other, yet retaining all powers not expressly given over in the Constitution. Or, as Madison put it in Federalist 39, "In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residual and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."
The historical reason for keeping the Electoral College rests on the basis that this is a federal union, meaning that the states retain sovereignty not given to the federal government. Consequently, the states should have a voice in determining who our leaders are in the federal government. Originally, senators were selected not by popular vote, but by the respective state legislatures, in deference to the federal system. This method was changed in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment, an ill-advised amendment, in my view, and I am not alone in that respect. Justice Antonin Scalia has also argued that the Seventeenth Amendment changed the central character of the Constitution.
Following the Revolutionary War, the newly independent states organized under Articles of Confederation. The Articles did not provide for an executive, and were deficient in a number of other means. The Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution was called only to review the Articles and recommend any necessary changes to improve their efficiency.When the delegates met in Philadelphia, they undertook the design of an entirely new system of government. One faction proposed having the Legislature choose the executive. Those opposed to this idea were concerned that such a consolidation of power in the Legislature could lead to a type of monarchy similar to that which the states had recently become independent. Eventually, the task of determining how to select an executive was assigned to a Committee of Eleven -- James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, Nicholas Gilman, Rufus King, David Brearley, John Dickinson, Daniel Carroll, Hugh Williamson, Pierce Butler, and Abraham Baldwin. The design crafted by this Committee, with few amendments, was the Electoral College.
Federalist 39, written by James Madison, a member of the Committee of Eleven, explains the Founders' intent in crafting the legislative and executive branches. He first explains the character of the Constitution, and the method of its ratification:
"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors -- the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation -- is obvious from this simple consideration: that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution."
It was important for the Framers to emphasize that the new Constitution created a limited central government. The states, as sovereign entities in their own right, would retain all authority not expressly ceded to the federal government in the Constitution. In this respect, the Constitution created a dual sovereignty, as the federal government had certain clearly defined powers, and the states remained sovereign entities joined by compact with each other, yet retaining all powers not expressly given over in the Constitution. Or, as Madison put it in Federalist 39, "In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residual and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."
The historical reason for keeping the Electoral College rests on the basis that this is a federal union, meaning that the states retain sovereignty not given to the federal government. Consequently, the states should have a voice in determining who our leaders are in the federal government. Originally, senators were selected not by popular vote, but by the respective state legislatures, in deference to the federal system. This method was changed in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment, an ill-advised amendment, in my view, and I am not alone in that respect. Justice Antonin Scalia has also argued that the Seventeenth Amendment changed the central character of the Constitution.
More on the historical and practical reasons to keep the college this evening.
posted by Hal | 1:30 AM
1 Comments:
WELL WE HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT TH DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.HI MOM
Post a Comment
<< Home