You get the feeling the founders were groping for an answer on this one; they had their eyes on issues which seemed essential at the time but which don’t figure in the calculation today: whether Spain would bribe Congress, for instance.

But the big picture emerged quickly, and the essential lines were clear. There were three possible powers that could choose the president (the judiciary was quickly eliminated as a candidate): the people, the states, or the Congress.

There were objections to all three. For instance, the danger of letting Congress choose, and thus control, the president was forcefully stated. Wilson of Pennsylvania warned that it would lead to legislative tyranny.

Some delegates, notably Gouverneur Morris (and most of the Pennsylvanians) and Madison himself were for direct election by qualified voters (which was not a truly popular election; most states had property qualifications).

But Roger Sherman, Charles Pinckney and others argued that the people should not elect the chief executive directly. They said the people would not be well-informed enough and would “be led by a few active & designing men.” The two-party system was not foreseen yet (one of the objections to direct election was that no one would get a majority vote), but it’s hard to avoid admitting that there was some truth in Pinckney’s fears.

Various compromises were kicked around over the next few days, but none emerged as a clear favorite. The option of giving the states the job of picking the president fell afoul of large state-small state jealousies, and the delegates turned back to Congress as the body to choose the president, and this actually was approved (a seven-year term with no re-election) on July 26.

Late in August the matter was brought up again, and it became clear there was no clear concensus for a method of electing the president, and serious objections existed to all the main proposals. The matter went to the committee appointed on Aug. 31 (with one member from each state) to resolve all the unsettled questions.

There Pierce Butler came up with the current compromise, which satisfied almost everyone. Hamilton in the “Federalist” breezed over the Electoral College, noting that even the opponents of the Constitution had raised no serious objection to it.

The genius of the compromise was to have the electors appointed in such manner as the state legislators should direct. Effectively punting it back to the states, they did not enshrine popular vote, which eased the fears of those who had an eye on the mob, but nor did they block it. The electors were to meet in their own states, to remove the possibility of intrigue on a national level, and they were to vote for two candidates, one of whom must be a resident of another state.

Technically, state legislatures can decide not to have an election for electors at all, and instead appoint electors via the legislative process, or else assign the task to someone in the state executive branch.
Under Article II of the Constitution, electors are appointed in each state “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” Now while the mechanics of the electoral college’s ballot process for President and Vice-President were changed with the 12th Amendment, the basic method for choosing electors was not.

One might even argue that state legislatures leaving the choice of electoral candidates to state party committees demonstrates a misfeasance on the legislatures’ part, namely a dereliction of their appointive duty. The way in which state legislatures avoid this critique is by formally throwing the appointive power to popular election. However, in 48 states voters choose party-appointed electoral slates rather than individual electors, and as a result voters often have no idea who is actually casting their lot for President and Vice-President. (Texas is exceptional in that the Secretary of State publishes the names and addresses of every elector candidate, regardless of party, who volunteers contact information.) Thus one might argue that the electoral college has never been allowed to operate properly– that elector campaigns should outweigh presidential campaigns, if state legislatures deem popular elections expedient. Otherwise, the choice of electors would be entirely in the hands of state legislatures.

A few things:

- Is it a bad thing that the GOP in South Carolina would want to get as many voters to the polls as possible? Encouraging voter participation seems like a good thing to me.

- Electors have never acted as protectors of the electorate against a demagogue, and never will be in our two-party system. Electors are party die-hards who have no incentive at all to not vote for their party’s candidate.

- I have a hard time seeing how direct elections would result in greater fraud. In fact, I’d say it’s easier now since it’s easier to organize a conspiracy with fewer people (i.e. state party officials) involved.

- I’d hardly argue the electoral college has made candidates broaden their appeal beyond regional preferences. Look at the last two presidential election results. Blue up top, red down south. That hardly suggests national appeal for either candidate.

- The two party system is here to stay as long as we elect the candidate with the most votes. Duverger’s Law much?

- Disenfranchisement? That’s an argument FOR the electoral college?? As things currently are, voters in Wyoming have what amounts to SEVEN times as much voting power as voters in California. It’s big states that are disenfranchised in the electoral college. And of course, that’s where all the people are.

- Would it really be horrible if every campaign focused on Houston, New York, Atlanta and Chicago media markets to get their message out? The issues that decide elections should be the issues that are the most important to the most people. Instead candidates can’t babble on enough about the virtues of Iowa ethanol. That’s not the kind of issue that should be determining our candidates or our elections. So yes, voters in rural areas would be more ignored. But the tradeoff is that a few million more people get heard.

When it comes down to it, candidates should go to where the people are and everyone’s vote should count equally. The electoral college does neither of these things, and it no longer serves the purposes it was designed for in the first place.