Thoughts on Our Corrupted Presidential Election Process

Did the Framers actually bequeath the circa 2016 Animal House presidential election process?

Nothing occupied the Federal Convention of 1787 more than debate involving the executive branch. One man would be responsible for executing the laws passed by a free people and corporate states. More than sixty votes were necessary to define the method of presidential election. From near the beginning of the convention on May 25th and almost to the end, September 17th, the Framers wrestled with presidential powers, the balance of those powers with congress, and how a free people could design an office that precluded the trappings of monarchy, minimized internal and external corruption and prevented foreign influence. What sort of electoral system would encourage the election or appointment of men with the necessary personal qualities to honorably fulfill enormous responsibilities?

Just as the people-at-large were not entrusted with electing senators, neither did the Constitution invite the people into the presidential electoral system, and for the same reason: they were certain to fall under the spell of demagogues. To limit populist manipulators and the factionalism they bring, our presidential election design is a clumsy, confusing system involving five entities: the states, the house, the senate, congress sitting in joint session, and a one day confab not identified in the Constitution, the electoral college.

State legislatures were made responsible for appointing presidential electors. From Article II § 1:

“In such manner as the legislature thereof may direct” placed enormous responsibility on the states. Just as state legislators served to filter the will of the people in senatorial appointments, it was hoped they would exercise prudential judgment in presidential elections. Ideally, state legislators, typically concerned with local matters, would be elevated into national statesmen for one day every four years. They would appoint presidential electors from the wise, virtuous and dignified men they knew. Through this filtered system which entrusted so much to the judgment of the few, the Framers vastly increased the likelihood of presidents with national appeal in possession of the requisite qualities so necessary in republics: virtue, discretion and honor.

Alternatively, state legislators could establish popular election of presidential electors. Some states immediately did just this; they punted the selection of presidential electors to the popular will. From very the beginning, in the 1788 election of George Washington, four state legislatures introduced democracy to the electoral process. Popular suffrage, of course, was far more limited in those days, but the democratic element in presidential elections grew quickly. By 1820, only seven of twenty-three state legislatures (MO, AL, IN, LA, VT, DE, SC) directly appointed presidential electors. The last holdout was South Carolina in 1860.

Perhaps it was unrealistic for the Framers to entertain the idea that democracy, factionalism and political party domination could be kept out of the election for chief executive, yet their governing system limited the direct democratic element to the election of representatives. Absent a democratic element, the rise of demagogues is an impossibility.

It is to our shame and perhaps demise that modern presidential elections resemble a TV reality show rather than the dignified and thoughtful process envisioned by our Framers. Instead of appointing men and women likely to appeal to the nation’s highest and noblest aspirations, our system increasingly encourages the election of loathsome creatures of horrid character who promise to salve the base desires of those who put them in office.

My point isn’t to imply the banning of political parties or that presidential wannabees should somehow be prevented from seeking public office. The existing system is far too entrenched in our political psyche. My purpose is to show that today’s process isn’t the one expected by the Framers, and most importantly, its corruption demonstrates what happens when a nation loses sight of the purposes of its governing institutions.

1. Berg-Andersson, Richard E. TheGreenPapers.com. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ByWhomElectorsWereAppointed.phtml

I don’t think the ‘founders’ ever wanted the public to really be the driving force for Presidential election. By picking Electoral College members...they would show up and vote, and they’d have more of a thought process to qualities involved. But in less than forty years, the system was manipulated into a national contest.

Once we crossed the line where you could hinder the majority of the Electoral College rule....and invoke the House involvement, it went to another level of outside involvement.

With both parties today....I think lobbyists and insiders are peeved at how the results are achieved. Face it....if Hillary has to drop out....no one wants Bernie. If you go into a contested convention Cruz and Trump....neither will be selected and it’ll be an insider who hasn’t spent a day on the campaign trail.

The public frustration is high and I doubt if anyone gets sworn into office in January who is actively running today. That should bother more than half the public...but what exactly will you do about it?

Corrupt? Forget it. This is politics, not religion. People keep seeking utopian redemptive politics, which does not exist outside of wool gathering.

Just make sure its one man/woman, 1 vote. The rest takes care of itself.

Who cares if both the democrat and republican parties want to commit suicide. Let them.

That should bother more than half the public

It's astounding that voter disgust is so massive that it's getting a majority of votes in BOTH political parties. Both parties have finagled their rules so extremely that votes don't matter. It's not okay in a world where deep pocket special interests can control the delegate selection process.

If the nomination is stolen, an established third party with a real good VP choice must be tempting. The voting public could well be angry enough to give that choice a plurality in enough states to have the needed electoral votes.

The oligarchy decides who goes to DC these days. Rarely to the people decide. The corruption in the process is now visible to any that care to have a look. Sanders being cheated in the Rat party and Trump being cheated in the R party exposes just how horrible our elected “leaders” and their donor masters are.

Take away the high paying salaries, perks, benefits, and exemptions and then we’ll find out who’s doing it for The People and who’s doing it for personal gain. We need term limits and legislation that states that members of Congress cannot be exempt from their own laws.

“In such manner as the legislature thereof may direct” ~~placed enormous responsibility on~~^{vests complete authority in} the states.

Forgive the “grammar nazi” attitude, but words mean things.
“Responsibility" is not a synonym for “authority.” That is a statement of fact. “Responsibility and authority must never be separated” is a statement of aspiration:
It's not my place to run the train The whistle I can't blow. It's not my place to say how far The train's allowed to go. It's not my place to shoot off steam Nor even clang the bell.
But let the damn thing jump the track And see who catches hell.
illustrates why the two should not be separated.

Rules are rules. They have not been talked about because it has been so long since they mattered. Usually long past this time the states start voting for the presumed “winner”. Donald has not done so because 1. Most people vetted him and saw a NY liberal with no consistent principles. 2. He has offended many by his character assassination on other candidates, reporters, Heidi Cruz and all who publicly oppose him - think striking back 10X harder. 3. He has no policy depth even now as with his abortion gaffe, NATO and nuclear “positions” and many more. So now it turns out he ignored the ground game and it is catching up with him. He has failed to add supporters and that is why it looks like he will never win 1237 votes.

Anyone that has read the Federalist Papers knows the concerns our founding fathers had with direct democracy. They feared that someone with a cult of personality would sweep into office and they feared the mob rule of the majority. The primary system, as the electoral college, are important speed bumps in the way of that kind of election.

The primary system is new. It's function is to reinforce the illusion of participation in (and indirectly, control over) their government, and to reinforce the false belief that democracy is good.

In fact, the people do not control the government. The government controls the people. This is as true in democracies as it is in dictatorships, monarchies, and representative republics.

Several years ago when Publius ran an FR series on The Federalist, I was asked if I thought the Framers made any mistakes. While I still don't think they made any mistakes, and they had to come up with a system they were confident would make it through a tough ratification process, I wish they had definitively assigned presidential elector appointments to state legislators. Had they done so, it would have taken a constitutional amendment to democratize the appointment of electors, just as the 17A democratized senatorial appointments. In any event, it has always been up to us, the sovereign people to recognize shortcomings in the superstructure of our government and correct them via Article V.

The political parties, organizations not contemplated by the framers have become corrupt. Too much power and too much money is available in Washington to any political party that can control the government. Voters are lied to, manipulated, and bribed to support the political machine.

The Democrat Party were the first to go down the rotten road, but the Republicans have made the turn and are speeding up to catch up. The Democrats have structured their demographics to assemble a constituency who want corrupt and criminal politicians. They believe that the result will be a party with perpetual power and no accountability. The Republicans have a mixed bag, honest voters and others who want their politicians to do their bidding. The Republican Party cannot survive the resulting dynamics inside the party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.