Electoral College History
Video Links: [TikTok] [YouTube]
Every four years, Americans face the spectacle of presidential elections, a time when broadcast ads pose as serious debates pitting candidates against each other in a tribal us-versus-them cage match that's less about debating ideas and more about hurling epithets like a game of dodge ball using feces. A critical component of this dynamic is the much-maligned Electoral College, a process of American democracy that has baffled more people than millennials trying to figure out how to use a rotary phone. But let's step back f
"Imagine a time, when it all began…"
Let's set our "way-back machine" to Philadelphia in 1787. The Framers of the Constitution were developing a new operating system for running the country, but when they came to the election of the president, they started running into issues because no one could agree on one of two primary methods: either a direct democracy vote, or a Congressional vote.
"Whoever found it first would be sure to do their worst; they always had before…"
Direct Democracy, or Popular Vote.
A direct democracy (or "popular") vote seems simple enough; every eligible voter votes, and the candidate receiving the most votes wins. That idea was appealing to many of the Framers, especially from the Northern states, because it was being used successfully at a state level, but it was unclear how it could be used to identify qualified candidates at a national level. Also, while the "three-fifths compromise" allowed the Southern states more representation in Congress, it didn't give them nearly enough voters to oppose the much larger count of Northern voters. So, executive power would be controlled by the Northern states instead of being accountable to ALL of the states.
Even today, the largest problem with a popular vote stems from its relative simplicity. Every citizen gets to line up and wield their mighty "power of one", believing that their choice of candidate was an epic saga of strategy and foresight. In reality, the list of potential candidates is, let’s be honest, usually about as similar as different brands of ketchup, and the process of voting has all of the subtlety of a fast-food drive-thru. However, the hypocrisy of the popular vote only starts when the results come in. If the candidate we voted for wins, we’re ready to high-five strangers in the street, convinced that our genius choice has changed the world. But if they lose, suddenly we're experts on how the system is rigged and how our vote didn’t really matter.
"Imagine a man where it all began…"
Election by Congress, or Parliamentary System.
In a Congressional vote, each Representative and Senator votes for the candidate of their choice, and again whoever gets the most votes wins. For the Southern states in 1787, having Congress choose the President would solve both of their main concerns with a direct democracy vote. They figured that Congressional representatives, "the country's political elite", would have no problem identifying qualified national political figures, and the "three-fifths compromise" gave the Southern states more political clout. A presidential election by Congress, however, would infringe on the Framers' desire for a separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches opening up the possibility that the President could simply become a Congressional puppet.
Even today, getting Congress to agree on anything is a dazzling master class in double-dealing and pretense. Congress members would be known for extolling the virtues of the candidate as if they’ve just discovered the Holy Grail. Yet, behind closed doors, the conversations sound more like how much political integrity is frequently overridden by personal gain, like how your dog might prefer the steak you’re eating over the kibble in its bowl. Then there’s the matter of party unity. Congress members publicly vow to support their party's choice for president, citing the importance of “party cohesion” and “democratic values.” Privately, however, many are calculating the impact of their vote on their own re-election chances and personal ambitions. It's less about loyalty and more about aligning with the winning side of a potential political apocalypse.
"To build the best 'big stick', to turn the winning trick, but this was something more."
State-based Electors, or "Electoral College".
Hence, the Framers' dilemma: if only there were a way to combine both options into a single, unifying concept. And that was their solution: combine the two processes. For the "Congressional vote", an elector from each congressional district is selected (since it couldn't actually be a Congress member, and each district within a state has roughly the same number of people) as well as two "at-large" electors from each state. For the "direct democracy vote", every eligible voter gets to cast their vote for the candidate that they want, but all of the votes are counted within each congressional district and the candidate winning the district would get that elector's vote while the candidate winning the state would get the two "at-large" votes. It was a win-win for the Framers.
"Big shots try to hold it back. Fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end whatever the hopeless may say."
The REAL problems started later because the Framers let each state decide how to select their state's electors. Within 15 years later, states started using a "winner-take-all" system where the candidate winning the state received ALL of that state's electoral votes. This shocked the Framers who were still alive [e.g., James Madison] because, when they were debating the Constitution, few of the constitutional framers anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules. But that's a topic for a different article.
"All the powers that be, and the course of history would be changed forevermore."
The Electoral College is not perfect, but nothing in politics ever is. Still, it's better than either a purely popular vote, a marvel of modern hypocrisy and a celebration of our collective delusion that one vote can make a difference; or the Congressional vote that's limited to an arena where principled stances are as ephemeral as morning mist, loyalty is as fluid as a soap bubble, and hypocrisy takes center stage to deliver an Oscar-worthy performance. If there's a better idea out there, I haven't heard about it, and if there's one thing we've discovered in the digital age, it's that there are a lot of smart people out there, and that they are hopelessly outnumbered.