The Framers' embrace of the Electoral College not based on disdain for democracy

The Framers of the Constitution seriously considered adoption of a direct popular vote for the election of the president until objections exposed the likelihood that lack of communication, transportation and adequate knowledge of candidates would hobble the ability of Americans to make a reasoned and informed choice. Some feared that voters would not be familiar with national leaders and would reflexively support candidates from their own states. Voter parochialism would undermine the prospects for national union. Although James Madison was an advocate for the popular vote, for its democratic nature, he observed that these challenges persuaded delegates to seek an alternative means of selecting the president, so long as it was grounded in the wishes of the voters.

It bears reminding that the Framers’ embrace of the Electoral College did not reflect, as some have suggested over the years, a disdain for democracy. George Mason of Virginia, one of three delegates to the Constitutional Convention who opposed the direct popular vote, is often cited for his opposition for direct election of the president: “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for the chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colours to a blind man.” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, another opponent, whose career after the Constitutional Convention included advocacy of manipulation of voting districts – “gerrymandering” for which he has been wrapped in something approaching eternal censure – held a mixed view of the wisdom of the people. After losing an election, he denounced voters for their lack of knowledge. Later, after he won an election, he declared the immense wisdom of the electorate.

The argument that the Framers feared democracy, or held it in contempt particularly in direct elections, is difficult to defend, as the constitutional text alone demonstrates. For starters, delegates’ resorting to a popular vote procedure within each state for ratifying the Constitution represented an extraordinarily democratic and unique way of giving voice to the people to implement a document that would serve as the law of the land. In addition, members of the House of Representatives are directly elected by the people based on fixed and regular elections, and there is an absence of property qualifications for federal elections. The Constitution – Article II – also permits popular election of members of the Electoral College. For that matter, while not an issue before the Convention, most delegates favored popular election of governors in each state, a position that hardly supports the assertion of fear and loathing of direct elections in Philadelphia.

The Framers’ support of important democratic principles, however imperfect and incomplete it was, was evident in their decision in the last days of the Convention to introduce a national Bill of Rights in the First Congress, which convened in 1789. Most members of the initial Congress, dubbed by scholars as a “Continuing Constitutional Convention,” had been delegates in Philadelphia. The inclusion in the Bill of Rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the freedom to petition government for redress of grievances, evinces an ongoing constitutional commitment to both encouragement and protection for citizens to participate in the civic affairs of the day, as well as in the governance of the nation.

It would be ridiculous to claim that democracy was flourishing in 1787 America in the way it has over two centuries. After all, Americans have ratified constitutional amendments, precisely, to fix oversights and failures of the original Constitution. The elimination of slavery, and granting women and Blacks the right to vote, among other cornerstone amendments that have reconstructed the nation, are prime examples of the right of the people to raise their voices in the name of progress, and stark reminders that the founders, brilliant as they were in many ways, were unable to transcend some of the limited moral sensibilities of their time.

Stymied by practical considerations, the Framers turned their gaze from a popular vote to the Electoral College as a means of selecting the president. In this move, they did not abandon the popular voice, but retained it, albeit in an indirect manner. James Wilson observed: “The choice of this officer is brought as nearly home to the people as practicable.” We turn next week to the Framers’ evolving thoughts.

Sponsored in part by Humanities North Dakota. http://www.HumanitiesND.org