The Real Hawkeye
member
Most people, it seems to me, don't understand the purpose of the electoral college. According to the original design of our Federal Government, there were two legitimate interests, according to the Founders, that needed representation in it. Firstly, there was that of the people. Their interests were represented by their elected Representatives in the House. Their districts were small, so it would be easy for their constituents to influence them in their roles as the people's representatives in the newly established Federal Government.
Then the States themselves, as sovereign entities, needed representation in the Federal Government. Their legitimate interest was to hold the Federal Government to its Constitutionally delegated powers, and prevent the usurpation of powers belonging exclusively to the States, i.e., all powers not delegated by the States, via the actual words of the Constitution, to the Federal Government (The clear implication being that all governmental authority originated in the States - which in turn derived directly from the people - and was then partially delegated by the States, as sovereign entities - to the new Federal Government). That was the job of the Senators.
Senators didn't represent the people, per se, so you only needed two per State, regardless of population size. Each State, no matter its size, needed the same amount of Senators because they were each deemed equal with respect to being sovereign States (i.e., regardless of population size, no one State was any more a sovereign State than another, so equal representation was provided for in the Senate, which was the representative body of the State governments). Senators were typically nominated by their State governors and then, by requirement of the Constitution, voted into office by their State legislature. Generally they took direction from their State governors and legislatures, not the people of the State, since they did not represent the interests of individual citizens, but those of their State, as a sovereign entity.
As for the president, he was not a representative of anyone, unless you wanted to say he was the representative of the will of Congress. His job was merely to execute the laws made by the Representatives and the Senators in Congress, so it was not thought important that the people, or the State legislatures, should be able to vote directly for him. They pretty much left it up to the State legislatures to decide how his electors were chosen. The only thing the Constitution demands in this regard is that State electors (who ultimately elect the president) equal the number of congressional districts, plus two for each State. There is not even a requirement that you, as an individual voter, get to state your preference for either electors or president.
You see, presidents are not supposed to make policy, so their job is not important in the sense that it would require that he be directly answerable to the people in elections. The policy makers were your Representatives and Senators, representing the interests of individual citizens and of State governments. Presidents didn't represent anyone's interest, other than perhaps, as previously stated, those of Senators and Representatives. You could have just as well had both houses of Congress elect the president, which was actually seriously considered by the Founders at one point.
The point is that under the Constitution, the president's job is merely to execute the laws, because it is too inefficient for a large body like Congress to do so, and they were only in session for a brief period per year for the purpose of making the laws and determining national policy. The really important folks in the Federal Government, except perhaps when our nation is under attack, are the Representatives and Senators. That's why we don't directly elect presidents. They are not meant to be our representatives, and have little Constitutionally authorized power to effect our daily lives. Our representatives as individual citizens were our Representatives in the House. States had Senators to look out for State interests. Any competent person was assumed to be able to execute the laws made by Congress, and presidents didn't establish our national policies, so it was not thought necessary for them to be directly elected.
The only reason people today want to directly elect the president is because the presidency has morphed into something the Constitution never intended. We have a super executive today, with the power to make war at a whim (for example), without even getting consent from the people's representatives in Congress. That being the case, we all want to be able to pick who this king-like super executive is going to be. The executive, however, needs to be put back in his Constitutional role. That's the answer. The answer is not to make him a super representative of the people via direct elections so as to match his usurped super executive powers.
Then the States themselves, as sovereign entities, needed representation in the Federal Government. Their legitimate interest was to hold the Federal Government to its Constitutionally delegated powers, and prevent the usurpation of powers belonging exclusively to the States, i.e., all powers not delegated by the States, via the actual words of the Constitution, to the Federal Government (The clear implication being that all governmental authority originated in the States - which in turn derived directly from the people - and was then partially delegated by the States, as sovereign entities - to the new Federal Government). That was the job of the Senators.
Senators didn't represent the people, per se, so you only needed two per State, regardless of population size. Each State, no matter its size, needed the same amount of Senators because they were each deemed equal with respect to being sovereign States (i.e., regardless of population size, no one State was any more a sovereign State than another, so equal representation was provided for in the Senate, which was the representative body of the State governments). Senators were typically nominated by their State governors and then, by requirement of the Constitution, voted into office by their State legislature. Generally they took direction from their State governors and legislatures, not the people of the State, since they did not represent the interests of individual citizens, but those of their State, as a sovereign entity.
As for the president, he was not a representative of anyone, unless you wanted to say he was the representative of the will of Congress. His job was merely to execute the laws made by the Representatives and the Senators in Congress, so it was not thought important that the people, or the State legislatures, should be able to vote directly for him. They pretty much left it up to the State legislatures to decide how his electors were chosen. The only thing the Constitution demands in this regard is that State electors (who ultimately elect the president) equal the number of congressional districts, plus two for each State. There is not even a requirement that you, as an individual voter, get to state your preference for either electors or president.
You see, presidents are not supposed to make policy, so their job is not important in the sense that it would require that he be directly answerable to the people in elections. The policy makers were your Representatives and Senators, representing the interests of individual citizens and of State governments. Presidents didn't represent anyone's interest, other than perhaps, as previously stated, those of Senators and Representatives. You could have just as well had both houses of Congress elect the president, which was actually seriously considered by the Founders at one point.
The point is that under the Constitution, the president's job is merely to execute the laws, because it is too inefficient for a large body like Congress to do so, and they were only in session for a brief period per year for the purpose of making the laws and determining national policy. The really important folks in the Federal Government, except perhaps when our nation is under attack, are the Representatives and Senators. That's why we don't directly elect presidents. They are not meant to be our representatives, and have little Constitutionally authorized power to effect our daily lives. Our representatives as individual citizens were our Representatives in the House. States had Senators to look out for State interests. Any competent person was assumed to be able to execute the laws made by Congress, and presidents didn't establish our national policies, so it was not thought necessary for them to be directly elected.
The only reason people today want to directly elect the president is because the presidency has morphed into something the Constitution never intended. We have a super executive today, with the power to make war at a whim (for example), without even getting consent from the people's representatives in Congress. That being the case, we all want to be able to pick who this king-like super executive is going to be. The executive, however, needs to be put back in his Constitutional role. That's the answer. The answer is not to make him a super representative of the people via direct elections so as to match his usurped super executive powers.
)