Politically Incorrect Defense of the Electoral College

Now that Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States there will be the usual rant against the electoral college and the demand for change to a one person one vote system. Before I started to write this post I reread Federalist Papers 59 and 68. Our founding Fathers were intelligent but more important they understood human nature. They knew that all men (And women) were created equal before God and that all men (and women) should be treated equal before the law. However men and women are not equal in any other respect. Some people are tall while others are short. Some people are very intelligent and others less so. Some people work very hard while others seem satisfied to depend on others for their material needs. Some people are greedy for personal power and are corrupt while others model great integrity, honesty and truly serve the needs of others. Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be those among us who, for selfish reasons, would try to subvert presidential elections for their own personal gain.

One person one vote might sound “fair,” but would you let a homeless man sitting on the curb outside a 7-Eleven store manage all your 401k money? If everyone is equally qualified to select the President of the United States of America, should not each person be equally qualified to manage your 401k retirement money? No. Why not? Not everyone has good judgment. You probably would not think the town drunk, a homeless man or a convicted felon had the required judgement, knowledge and skill to wisely invest your money. Likewise, the Founding Fathers knew that most citizens would not actually “know” the candidates for President and most would not have the required knowledge to accurately assess a candidate’s fitness. But most citizens would be able to assess the trustworthiness and judgment of an elector selected from their own communities. They probably would not select a convicted felon to be their “elector” but they might select the most successful local businessman or the most respected teacher from their children’s school (e.g., someone they knew personally and whose judgment they trusted).

Selecting local people whose judgment they trusted was a more stable and credible way to elect the President than by a popular vote that would treat the judgment of the town drunk and convicted criminals (e.g., people who had modeled poor judgment) equal to that of the most respected teacher or successful local businessperson. So while it might be politically incorrect, I doubt we would trust convicted criminals or the town drunk to manage our 401k retirement funds so why should we trust them to directly elect the President of the United States?

The Electoral College process is yet another example of our Founding Fathers’ true genius and insight into human behavior. We should maintain the Electoral College and the intermediate electoral process as a valuable counter to the potential political party fraud and corruption. The governor of Virginia used an executive order, rather than legislative will of the people, to grant convicted felons the right to vote. The will of one man, the governor, took precedence over the legislative representatives of the people. This type of corruption is exactly what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent.

“Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, laid out the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.” (Wikipedia)

“Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint “the great body of the people” in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. No one who is an elector can be a U.S. officeholder, so none of the electors would be immediately beholden to a given presidential candidate. “ (Wikipedia)

See the exact text from the Federalist Papers below and my parenthetical comments. (Smile)

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. (The Federalist Papers, Number 68, para 2) It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. [Dr. C: Not everyone will have the required information and judgment to analyze and assess candidates’ abilities and qualifications] (The Federalist Papers, Number 68, para 3)

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. [Dr. C: Like the phony and professional riots in Portland and Oakland by hired troublemakers…to stir the uninformed mobs to action.] This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. (The Federalist Papers, Number 68, para 4) Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? [Dr. C: Like the donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments?] But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. (The Federalist Papers, Number 68, para 5)