by Jeffry R Fisher

Created on: December 03, 2009   Last Updated: December 04, 2009

The Founders had more than one reason to establish "electors" between the people and the president. One reason, protecting small states, is oft cited but poorly understood in modern times. Another reason, protecting against mob rule, is often overlooked or cited only dismissively without close examination. A third reason, to answer to state governments (as opposed to Congress or the people) is virtually forgotten.

Unfortunately, these purposes have been undermined and obscured by state election laws such as popularity contests and winner-take-all. These laws have created problems of their own. Seeing problems but no purpose, many people are ready to junk the elector system rather than find causes and fix them.

That would be shortsighted. I suggest that the Founders' reasons have merit even today. However, even if one eventually rejects the value of small-state sovereignty, one could rebalance the electors without discarding them. Finally, for each complaint against presidential elections, look for a cause in states' election statutes before demanding an end to electors.

We should not junk a damaged institution when we could stop the damage. If you can see any value to any of its purposes, then you should not discard the electoral college.

Purpose #1, Small States:

The most commonly known purpose for having electors, which follows directly from states' equal representation in the Senate, is to respect the value of state sovereignty.

At the time those provisions were written, ratifying the US Constitution required 9 of 13 states, so state independence wasn't just a philosophical concern but a practical one.

It would be easy for us today to dismiss the value of state sovereignty as nothing more than that immediate concern, but that would be intellectually lazy. People didn't just have semi-autonomous states, they valued them. Indeed, the very name "state" implies nationhood - far, far more potent than the marionettes that we see today.

The states joined the union almost the way America joined the UN. Granted, the union has morphed since then, but might we have lost something in the process (other than slavery)?

There's something to be said for allowing 50 semi-sovereign entities to have 50 separate cultures. There's merit to the argument that even the least populous US state has at least as much right to go its own way, as any newly-minted Balkan country recognized by our state department.

Therefore, there's something to be said for granting each a measure of influence

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>