The U.S. will have the most important political event in November this year --
selecting the most powerful leader in the world, i.e., U.S. president.
If you have any question about the coming presidential election, please
ask H-USA. Experts will answer your question. Every question is welcome,
especially from non-American subscribers.
(Yone)
(Crosspost)
From: H-POL "H-Net Political History discussion list" 29-APR-1996 16:56:34.45
Subj: And now, a Message from our Founders.... [Nomination Seminar]
(H-POL Editor's Note)
I had originally intended that the following post would be one of the
first to come out for the nomination seminar, since it puts the U.S.
presidential contest in a historical perspective. Everybody started
sending their contributions in very quickly, however, and I tried to
accomodate them by putting them out as soon as I got them. So here,
at last, is my own contribution to the seminar.
Jack Reynolds [Nomination Seminar Editor]
====================================
And now, a word from our Founders....
If U.S. citizens are heartily sick of negative campaign ads,
proliferating polls and the self serving rhetoric that characterize the
present day presidential nominating process, they need not blame the
founding fathers. The framers of the United States Constitution never
intended that the public would play so prominent a role in the
presidential selection process. The delegates who met in Philadelphia in
the summer of 1787 designed an electoral college to insure that only the
very best men would be called upon to nominate so august a personage as
the nation's chief executive. A review of the rules for nominating the
president illustrates how far our political process has strayed from the
rinciples of Republicanism that inspired the Revolutionary leadership.
Current day historians portray the Constitution as an effort to
reign in some of the democratic "excesses" of the time. The new national
government, staffed by men of wider vision than those found in the
typical state house, would assert control over such troublesome issues as
taxes, trade and money. The legitimacy of a national government of
expanded powers required a popularly elected House of Representatives.
Within the national government, however, the House would be boxed in
between a judiciary, a Senate and a chief executive. All of the latter
offices were to be a step or two removed from popular control.
Some called the presidency a "kingly office". Its powers
outstripped those of the chief executives in the states. The president
was vested with veto powers over acts of congress, assumed control of the
nation's foreign policy and had considerable patronage at his disposal.
t was a position that called for man of "exalted character", and the
convention delegates encountered some difficulty devising a system to
insure that the office was filled by a man of proper credentials.
On seven occasions the delegates settled on a mode of selecting
the president -- only to reverse themselves on later vote. Originally,
it was agreed that he be the choice of Congress (the same way governors
were selected in most states). The president would serve a single term
of 7 years. Yet, some delegates worried that this mode of selection
would give the legislative branch too much leverage over the executive.
Prohibiting presidents from re-election would remove the temptation of
executives kowtowing to Congress to keep their jobs, but this was not
enough independence to satisfy James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and
others.
The proposition that the people elect the president enjoyed
little support inside the Constitutional Convention. Elbridge Gerry
branded the idea "radically vicious", even though his native state of
Massachusetts elected its chief executive by popular vote. George Mason
of Virginia asserted that it would be "as unnatural to refer the choice
of proper character for a chief magistrate to the people, as it would to
refer a trial of colors to a blind man." [McCormick, p. 20] Distrust of
the electorate was one hallmark of revised Republicanism of the post
Revolutionary leadership.
Delegates debated the issue of presidential selection late into
convention. The controversy was left to a "special committee on
unfinished business." It was this committee that returned to the full
body with the innovation of the electoral college. Many of the features
of the system had been brought up -- and rejected -- in the convention
previously, but now they were packaged anew. The framework was
apparently a satisfactory one in the eyes of the convention. Provisions
for electing the president excited little further debate in Philadelphia
or in the later ratifying conventions of the various states. The
relevant sections of the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) are
reproduced in Appendix 1 of this document. The procedures set forth for
presidential selection reflect several pressing concerns of the men who
met in Philadelphia: (1) maintaining the independence of the executive
branch, (2) forestalling the appearance of cliques or political parties
and the corruption that would inevitably follow, (3) balancing the
interests of small and large states, and (4) seeing that only the "best
men" serve as head of state.
Let us quickly review the workings of the electoral college.
This body is selected in each of the states by whatever manner a state
chooses. The sole duty of the members of the college is to meet in their
various states and come up with the names of two people for president.
The only limitation the Constitution imposes on the electors is that at
least one of their choices for president be an inhabitant of another
state. In this way, the Constitution forces electors to consider
candidates beyond their state borders, an important consideration given
how provincial minded most Americans were in the 1780s. (Would George
Washington have been the unanimous choice of the electors had they been
allowed only one choice for president?) The results of the balloting in
the states are conveyed to the United States Congress where they are
opened and counted. If the largest vote getter also has a majority of
the vote he is the new chief executive. If no person has a majority, the
House of Representatives selects the president from among the top five
names emanating from the electoral college. The Congress would also have
to make a choice between two candidates who emerge with a majority of the
vote and are tied - a mathematical possibility since each elector casts
two votes for one office.
Reviewing the details of the plan framed in Philadelphia we can
see that it addressed several issues that vexed the framers in the summer
of 1787. First, the document insured the independence of the executive
by depriving the national legislature of full power of appointment. The
House could select the president only if no majority vote emerged from
the electoral college, and then the congressmen had to make their choice
from the top 5 names supplied by the electors. The Constitution
stipulates that the congress make this selection "immediately" after they
count the votes of the electoral college, probably to discourage unseemly
politicking on behalf of one candidate or another. The one qualification
for the office of elector excluded members of the Senate or House, "or
Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States."
This ruling further removed legislators from the selection process and
prevented presidents from retaining office by getting his appointees into
the electoral college. Perhaps this is why the final document dropped
the single term rule and permitted chief executives to run for re-
election as often as they liked.
The nettlesome problem of weighing the interests of small and
large states was also neatly finessed by the electoral college. During
the proceedings in Philadelphia the smaller states made a determined
effort to maintain their equal status with the larger states under the
new federation. The question whether the all important legislative
branch was to be apportioned by population or to allow each state one
vote only (as was then the case with the Articles of Confederation) was
the most rancorous issue of the convention; it nearly brought the
deliberations to an untimely end. The Great Compromise resolved the
crisis by arranging for the apportionment of the House by population and
the Senate by state. The electoral college preserved this arrangement by
assigning the number of electors for each state based on its
representation in both houses of congress. While this arrangement would
give small states more than their due representation (based strictly on
population) it nonetheless insured the large states a preponderant
influence. The small states won back power in the event the selection
process went into overtime. When the Congress selected the president out
of the 5 top vote getters the balloting was to be by states, with each
state delegation having one vote. Given that Congress has only had
recourse to this procedure twice in its history (1800 and 1824) the small
states would appear to have come out with the worse end of the bargain.
But this may not have been how it seemed in 1787 if we suppose that the
electoral college was expected to function more as a nominating body than
an elective one.
The Constitution sets up a system that discourages the
electors of the various states from engaging in deliberations or deal-
making that would narrow down the field of candidates. Congress was
given the authority to see that the delegates met in their separate
states on the same day. (Having all the delegates convene in one
location at the same time made the process all the more inconvenient for
the electors but more convenient for the agents of corruption.) This
would prevent a candidate from amassing momentum -- the "Big Mo" of
modern politics -- that would induce other electors to vote for him.
Moreover, the electors only needed to make their choice known to
congress, transmitting their "sealed" results to the Vice President. One
of the convention delegates later claimed that it was assumed that the
votes of the members of the electoral college would be secret and unknown
until opened before the Congress. Secrecy and simultaneous decision-
making would help squelch the "intrigue," "cabals" and -- worst of all --
political parties that so distressed the Revolutionary generation.
If carried out as intended, the electoral college could rarely
be expected to settle on a choice for president. Mason predicted that in
19 cases of out 20 the electoral college would fail to register a
majority for anyone. This, of course, was not the case in 1787; George
Washington was on everyone's short list. But the delegates might well
have imagined that his successors would not be so obvious. Congress
exercised wide latitude in making its selections, choosing among the top
five finalists, probably because it was anticipated that no one would
emerge with more than a small minority of the vote. The delegates in
Philadelphia squabbled for some time over the arrangements for making the
final selection when a majority of in the electoral college did not
obtain; this is further evidence that the electoral college was expected
to function mainly as a nominating body rather than an elective one.
The results of the first presidential election certainly
conformed with such expectations. All the electors voted for Washington,
but the consensus broke down when it came to a second choice. John Adams
came up with a bare majority of 35 votes, and electors scattered another
34 among 10 other candidates. Moreover, John Adams owed his victory not
so much to the independent assessment of the electors as the politicking
of Washington, Hamilton and Madison, who wanted to insure that only a
friend of the Constitution emerged a heartbeat away from the presidency.
They wrote to the electors in the various states urging a united front
behind Adams. Plainly, the constitution's provisions were not cabal-
proof, as demonstrated by the most prominent of the framers themselves.
One by-product of the electoral college's two vote rule was the
creation of a new federal office. The records of the convention make no
mention of the vice presidency in the early discussions in Philadelphia.
The committee of unfinished business invented the office only as a means
of keeping the members of the electoral college honest. Electors had to
cast two votes, one of them for a person outside their own state.
Electors interested only in promoting a "favorite son" might be tempted
to throw away their second ballot by voting for a nonentity (i.e.,
someone who would not out poll the elector's first choice). By creating
the vice presidency for the runner up, the founders were forcing the
electors to take their second choice more seriously. The convention then
needed to come up with a job description for the vice president. They
made him titular head of the senate and, of course, the back up
president. The nation's first Vice President, the ever sensitive John
Adams, was the first to realize the job's limitations. "My country has in
its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the
invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." [Boller, p. 4]
Woodrow Wilson's vice president, Thomas Marshall, liked to tell the story
of two brothers. "One ran away to sea, the other was elected vice
president, and neither of them was heard of again." [Boller, p. 198]
The Constitution deferred to the states, specifically the state
legislatures, regarding the manner in which the electors were to be
selected. In the early presidential elections of the "First Party
System" (1788 - 1824) the states experimented with a variety of formats.
In 1789 only Pennsylvania mandated the current day system of having the
full slate of electors voted upon by in a general election. Elsewhere
(Massachusetts and Virginia) voters selected the electors on a
congressional district basis rather than statewide. New Jersey's
legislature told the governor to appoint the electors (with approval of
his cabinet). New York failed to select any electors because the two
houses of the state legislature could never agree on a procedure -- no
surprise there. The legislatures appointed the electors themselves in
some states; this remained the most common procedure up to the Age of
Jackson. In 1812, for example, half the states selected the electors in
this manner (and South Carolina would continue to do so until the Civil
War). It is worth noting parenthetically that there is nothing in the
Constitution that would prevent any state legislature from doing the same
today.
Even where the state legislatures authorized the voters to
select the electors, the founders hoped to discourage politicking.
Campaign practices of the day frowned on candidates making an open bid
for votes by making promises to the electorate -- this was the technique
of the demagogue. Moreover, there was not a whole lot at stake to tempt
the prospective elector. This was a position of honor, to be sure, but
it was a post that ceased to exist after the elector fulfilled his sole
duty. Even so, newspapers and posters in Pennsylvania in 1887 quickly
identified the electors affiliated with either the Federalists (who
wanted to see Washington and Adams as the choices) or the Anti-
Federalists (who supported Washington and Governor George Clinton of New
York). The Federalists won this battle, but sacrificed Republican
principles along the way.
Within their lifetimes, the framers of the constitution saw
their electoral college effectively dismantled. And, as we a have seen,
the makers of the Constitution themselves bear a heavy responsibility for
manipulating the process from the first time. They did not wish to risk
that a truly independent body select an opponent of the Constitution for
vice president, so they rounded up votes for Adams. Later on, the
competition between Hamilton and Jefferson would spur the Federalists and
Democratic-Republicans to see that the electors follow the party line.
With Washington no longer interested in running in 1796, straight ticket
voting by the members of the electoral college prevailed. All the
electors in six states voted either for the Federalist candidates (Adams
and Thomas Pickney) or the Democratic Republican choices (Thomas
Jefferson and Aaron Burr). When one Pennsylvania elector made it know
that he intended to support Adams and Jefferson, the Federalists who had
put him on their ticket condemned his independent course. "What!" one
letter to the editor complained, "Do I chuse Samuel Miles to determine
for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No! I
chuse him to act, not to think!" [Boller, p. 9]
There would have been more straight ticket voting in 1796
except that supporters of Adams and Jefferson were wary of voting for
their second choice lest Pickney or Burr emerge with most electoral votes
and capture the presidency. The Twelfth Amendment, adopted in 1804,
removed this complication by requiring electors to cast one vote for
president and the other for vice president. The system was now easier to
manipulate, and the electoral college's services as a nominating board no
longer seemed necessary. Another provision of the Twelfth Amendment
limited congress' range of choices to the top three vote getters. The
expectation now was for the college to produce a greater concentration of
the votes among a few candidates -- agreed upon ahead of time -- rather
than scattered among many in a largely uncoordinated process.
Most of the contingencies that the electoral college was
supposed to avert had come to pass by the 1820s. Not only had political
parties come into being, but the legislature effectively usurped the
power to choose the chief executive as Federalists and Democratic
Republicans nominated their presidential and vice presidential candidates
in party caucuses composed of congressmen and Senators. The
identification of various electoral slates with specific candidates
logically followed, and the electorate was invited to judge for itself
the qualifications of the various presidential candidates. The final
blow was the selection of Andrew Jackson, the barely literate, backwoods
indian fighter whom Jefferson regarded as wholly unfit for office.
The formal mechanism of the electoral college remains in place
long after it has outlived its purpose. Over time, various informal
bodies -- legislative caucuses, party conventions and now primaries --
control the selection process. The Constitution nowhere provides for
these mechanisms because they violate its central principles. One New
Jersey Senator complained as early as 1817 that scarcely any official was
"elected or appointed by a rule so undefined, so vague, so subject to
abuse, as that by which we elect the Chief Magistrate of the Union."
[McCormick, p. 3] No feature of the Constitution has been subject to as
much complaint as the electoral college. By one count, there have been
over 500 amendments proposed to change system, mostly to insure that the
winner of the popular vote be awarded the presidency. A constitutional
crisis is perhaps all that is required to ensure the adoption of measures
that would remove any pretense that the task of selecting the nation's
chief executive was properly the work of a body of distinguished
citizens.
APPENDIX
United States Constitution
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. He shall hold his office during the Term of
four Years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same
Term, be elected, as follows
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office
of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by
Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant
of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all
persons vote for, and the number of votes for each; which List they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of Government of the
United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of
the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
President, if such number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have
an equal Number of Votes, the House of Representatives shall immediately
chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in
like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes
shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one
Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from
two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the states shall be
necessary to a Choice. In every case, after the Choice of the President,
the Person having the greatest number of votes of the Electors shall be
the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have
equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice
President.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors,
and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the
same throughout the United States.
Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by
Ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not
be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in
their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots
the person voted as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of
all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-
President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of
the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- The
President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be
counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President,
shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number
of Electors appointed; and if no Person have such majority, then from the
persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of
those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President,
the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state
having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or
Members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states
shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives
shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve
upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice
President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President. -- The person having the
greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President,
if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed,
and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on
the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the
purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and
a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no
person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be
eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Okay, okay. I'll admit it. I did not go to the National
Archives to copy the Constitution from the original -- as any good
historian would. I took the material from the appendix to The
Federalist Papers, compiled by Clinton Rossiter (New York, 1961).
Hamilton lauds the workings of the electoral college in
Federalist Paper #68, and John Jay briefly touches on the subject in #64.
A popular -- if somewhat dated account -- of the workings of
the Constitutional Convention can be found in Carl Van Doren's The Great
Rehearsal, The Story of the Making of the Constitution of the United
States (New York: 1948).
Background information on the mindset of the constitution
makers borrows heavily from Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American
Revolution (New York: 1991) as well as Edmund S. Morgan's Inventing the
People, The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. Wood's
work puts the intellectual framework of Republicanism within a social
context. His work is, I suppose, the definitive work on Republicanism --
for the time being. I find Morgan's account, a narrower intellectual
history, very provocative given our culture's populist tendencies.
The largest part of this essay drew from Richard P.
McCormick's, The Presidential Game: The Origins of American Presidential
Politics (New York: 1982). The book follows the changing rules and
stratagems of electing the chief executive from 1787 to the
institutionalization of party conventions in the Jacksonian Era. I am
indebted to Professor McCormick for much my published work to date -- and
figure that he could hardly notice or care that I ripped off yet another
piece of his scholarship.
Abbreviated coverage of each of the presidential elections can
be found in The History of American Presidential Elections, 1789 - 1968
edited by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (New York: 1971). Readers looking
for a lighter fare will want to check out Paul F. Boller, Jr.,
Presidential Campaigns (Revised edition: New York, 1996).
Jack Reynolds
U. of Texas at San Antonio