Wary people in 1787 didn’t want a single man to have the powers of a king. Many worried that having an executive branch at all ran too much risk of tyranny. They thought all government actions should be managed by an executive committee of legislators — the parliamentary system. But the separate executive branch prevailed.

Once it was decided there would be a president, the question of how the president should be chosen gained importance. The key was this: could the founders design a process that would ensure that only a good man would get into office?

Remember the pinch the founders were in. George Washington was clearly in line to be the first president. He had the near complete confidence of the nation. Any limitations on the power of the office, or any complexity in the nominating process would appear as an insult to him. The founders had to avoid that, yet still design a process that would work when no George Washington was available.

Federalist 68 takes on the challenge. Hamilton promises that the method laid out in the Constitution absolutely ensures a good outcome. Every time.

“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.”

 Hamilton takes special delight in noting that men who otherwise opposed the new Constitution supported (or at least made no objection to) this aspect of the plan. And what was that plan? The electoral college. But pay close attention, because the founders idea of the electoral college bears no resemblance to the process used today.

Many citizens understand that America’s president is officially chosen by an obscure panel of electors rather than by the popular vote. But few know how crazily what we do today differs from the process the founders had in mind. Briefly the process outlined by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was:

1. Voting citizens in each state would choose a respected man from from each congressional district plus two more for the state at large. These were not candidates for the presidency. They were the electors. Anyone 25 or older who lived in the state and was not a national office holder could serve.

2. Those respected electors would gather in their separate states and discuss who might make a good president. They were expected to consider experience, ability and character – paying no heed to campaign slogans, opinion polls, or any of “the little arts of popularity.”

3. Electors in each state would pick two preferred candidates, at least one who wasn’t from their state.

4. The several states would then send their two names in the national capital.

5. Congress would open the messages from the states and count the votes. The top vote getter across all states would be named president.

 Notice the differences between this plan and our modern practices:

•  The process was intended to happen quickly – leaving no time for corrupting influences. Today’s presidential campaigns last two years or more and openly court outside influence. In fact, candidates are often judged unfit for the office when they fail to solicit outside influence (i.e., fund raise) successfully enough.

• The electors were intended to be prominent and popular citizens. The founders expected citizens to chose their electors with confidence and pride. But most living Americans cannot name any electors. The ballot in most states doesn’t name them.

• The founders expected potential nominees to sit quietly at home waiting to be informed that they were chosen to be president. That’s what Washington did in 1788, and Adams in 1796. Lincoln sat in Springfield while his supporters won him the nomination in 1860. As late as 1896, William McKinley did his campaigning from his own front porch. But today’s self-proclaimed and uninvited candidates run around the country feverishly, often wasting millions of dollars and burning out months before the primary process even begins.

The modern version of the electoral college affects the election of the president in two ways. First, it shifts the balance of representation slightly in favor of states with small populations. This isn’t as big a deal as its made out to be, and the people who believe the electoral college protects small states need to look closer. In 2016, Wyoming cast 0.2% of the popular votes, but got 0.6% of electoral votes; California cast 10.3% of the popular votes, but got only 10.2% of the electoral votes. The effect is slight.

Second, due to the terrible practice of winner-take-all electoral voting, almost half of all votes cast are effectively thrown out. States where the popular vote is very nearly 50-50 nevertheless throw all their electoral votes to one candidate in the electoral college. This is the real scandal of the electoral college. The Constitution can be blamed, because the Constitution allows states to conduct elections as they please, and it pleases most of them to do it in that unfair way.

This unfairness doesn’t favor one party or the other, and it doesn’t favor small-population states. In 2020, millions of Republican votes were expunged in California, and millions of Democrat votes were expunged in Texas. Voters’ voices were silenced in little Vermont and in big Florida.

The modern process of choosing a president differs radically from what the founders intended. And the radical change is not understood because the offices and agencies responsible for civic education fail to explain it. This website from the National Archives neglects to mention the differences. It seems to want readers to believe that we still have what the founders intended. 

“The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.”

 The words  “[T]he Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution” would lead a reasonable reader to suppose that the current process is part of the original design. That isn’t true.

 George Conway wrote a good article about Federalist #68 for The Atlantic in October, 2019. He describes the original intent of the electoral college accurately and recognizes that the contemporary process is different. Conway questioned whether Donald Trump was capable of fulfilling his constitutional duties to “[T]ake Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Conway concluded the answer was No.

The question is whether he can possibly act as a public fiduciary for the nation’s highest public trust. To borrow from the Harvard Law Review article, can he follow the “proscriptions against profit, bad faith, and self-dealing,” manifest “a strong concern about avoiding ultra vires action” (that is, action exceeding the president’s legal authority), and maintain “a duty of diligence and carefulness”? Given that Trump displays the extreme behavioral characteristics of a pathological narcissist, a sociopath, or a malignant narcissist—take your pick—it’s clear that he can’t.

This doesn’t have to be about Trump. The main point of Hamilton’s essay in Federalist #68 is the promise of a “moral certainty” that American presidents will be men (or women) of certain virtue. Trump’s virtue is, to say the least, a debated subject, as was the virtue of several presidents in the past.

America today doesn’t follow the design of Federalist #68. And it doesn’t enjoy the assurances promised by Federalist #68.

Discuss:

• Would the founders original design for choosing a president work?

• Can you offer any defense for the winner-take-all electoral process?

• What should be done to make the presidential election process better?