The Electoral College

Grace Discher

Age 17

The process of electing a president through the Electoral College, as per the Constitution, can be briefly summed up into 4 points.


1. Each state was to have as many electors as it had Senators and Representatives.

2. The method of choosing the electors was left to the discretion of the states. (The electors, however, were to be men of character and learning who were only interested in selecting the candidate with the best qualifications.)

3. The electors were to meet in their respective state capitols, and each was to cast a ballot for two candidates.

4. The candidate receiving the majority of the votes was to become President, and the receiver of the next largest number of votes was to be VP.

One look at today’s engrossment in campaigns and political parties will show the obvious truth that we have digressed far from the original intent of our Founders. When the Constitution was framed, there was a decided aversion to political parties, and George Washington warned against their evils. The elections of 1788, 1792, and 1796 were conducted in the proper manner, and Washington and Adams were duly elected.

However, by the election of 1800, the continued tension between the ideological and political stands of Hamilton and Jefferson (Federalists and Anti-Federalists [Republicans]) was such that the nation was divided between them, bringing political parties into the elections. During the 1800 election, there was a lost connection in application between the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. Whereas before electors selected based on the personal merit of the candidate, votes were now cast concurrent with the intimation of the elector’s political party.

Previous to the election, each party indicated its favorite and designated a slate of electors who, if elected, were pledged to vote for the candidates belonging to their party. This reduced the Electoral College to a mere formality, effective only in name.

The effects of this deviation from the proper course can be clearly seen in the history of inadequate rulers in America. When once the personal qualification of the individual is put aside for an empty endorsement by a faction, the inevitable result is an inept, ill-qualified head of state.

America would do well to return to the original intent of her Founders. No longer would the disapproval of a certain party overrule the suitability and merit of a contender. The qualified, but unendorsed, “Third Party” candidate of today would be given equal standing in a world without manipulative parties. Unfortunately, the common mind is so dependent upon political divisions that a complete return unto the spirit of the law would be a nearly impossible undertaking in the present America. It would require a virtually complete overturning of the present system of electing, as well as an instilment of a sense of morals in the minds of Americans, before the intent of the Founders could be realized. Realistically, this is only possible with a very slow, arduous process of either converting or overpopulating the general public, or else forming a new nation established upon Biblical principles and constitutional law.

Conclusion? We have our work cut out for us.

One remaining point:

“Is it the fairest process?” Fairness doesn’t exist. ‘Nuff said.