* Before the establishment of the two-party system, electors were to be the best and brightest non-officeholders of a state, who would examine their consciences and vote for President. Once the party system came into being, electors became partisan hacks who held the position for reasons of loyalty.
Once the party system came into being? I’d like to see a reference that the electors were better and brighter before the party system came into being.
* Would there be merit in eliminating the Electoral College in favor of some other manner of choosing the President? Would there be merit in reinvigorating the Electoral College and returning to the original plan of the Framers? Would there be merit in ending the popular election of electors and returning the selection of electors exclusively to the state legislatures, something that could be done by the states without amending the Constitution? Make your case.
“original plan of the Framers”? The original compromise of the Framers. A compromise needed because the British had thirteen colonies.
* At 17, Hamilton raises the specter of a Manchurian Candidate, and at 22 he points out that the people would have to be corrupted first. It did not occur to Hamilton that one could corrupt the political parties and the press to effect the same end. How can this be corrected?
The electoral college is selected by the people and not the press nor the parties. We do it and we can choose not to be victims.
* At 33, Hamilton points out that talents for intrigue and pandering could raise a presidential candidate in one state, but not all. Has the presidential primary undermined this argument, and how could such a problem be fixed?
We can decide to fix it. There is still accountability. The result of Nov. 2010 is an example.
* Hamilton argues that the Vice President should be chosen with the President and not by the Senate the same way the House chooses its Speaker. Does his argument hold water? Why or why not?
Nah. It’s a silly argument. A vestigial organ from the arguments in the Constitutional convention. The VP does provide a nice Senate tie breaker but that’s about it.
* Vice President John Garner once characterized the office as “not worth a pitcher of warm spit,” although witnesses swore that the word he used only rhymed with “spit”. Should the Vice Presidency be abolished? What could replace the Vice Presidency in terms of succession?
If the House selects the speaker who is third in line, the Senate can select the VP who is second in line. Note that there would have to be some tie breaker for a 50-50 Senate. Possibly a vote from the President.
* There is a movement afoot to execute an end run around the Electoral College by having a state’s electoral votes cast for the winner of the national popular vote by way of an interstate compact, which is legal if the compact is approved by Congress. What are the pluses and minuses of this idea?
That idea will last until the day after it matters. If the Electoral College is divided 158 to 155 and one state voted 10 to 3 in favor of the loser of the popular vote but instead votes 0 to 13 for the winner, for a final tally of 168 to 155 for the winner instead of 161 to 165 for the loser then that state’s voters are going to ask “What the heck was our legislature thinking? We voted for the other guy!”
In the first presidential election, one of Virginia's ten electors was Patrick Henry. The other nine were the leading lights of the state.
The electoral college is selected by the people...
It's elected by the people, but selected by the state party organizations.
If the House selects the speaker who is third in line, the Senate can select the VP who is second in line.
That's as of 1947 when the Succession Act was last amended. Originally, after the VP, the succession went to the cabinet officers in order of the date of department establishment. Taking the Speaker and a Senate-elected Presiding Officer of the Senate out of the line of succession might make more sense.