The creators also never expected political parties.
I will repost something I originally posted on August 22, 2019, in the thread on the 10th Circuit decision.
I find that very few people, regardless of political affiliation, truly understand the origins and intended function of the Electoral College.
First of all, the Electoral College was established on a premise that proved wrong within President Washington’s first administration, with the rise of two party system. The founders had wrongly presumed a no party system, with multiple, regional favorite son candidates. They had presumed that (with the exception of Washington) that no candidate would achieve an Electoral College majority and that the election would routinely go to the House of Representatives. With the two party system, the founder’s assumptions went out the windows and flaws of the original Electoral College system, the cross party result of 1796 and the Electoral College tie of 1800 led to the 12th Amendment.
The Electoral College worked as the founders intended on exactly ONE occasion, the Election of 1824. The death of the first party system ended the Federalist Party and split the Democratic-Republican Party into the Adams Republicans (forerunner of the present day Republican Party) and the Jacksonian Democrats (forerunner of the present day Democratic Party). Additionally two other short lived factions existed, causing a four way split in the Electoral College in 1824 and sending the election to the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams was elected as a result of the corrupt bargain. By 1828, the second party system had taken hold and the Electoral College has for the most part rubber stamped the popular vote winner, except in 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.
In 1876, the Democrats essentially agreed to surrender the Presidency, which they had rightfully won, in exchange for the end of reconstruction and the removal of Federal troops from the south, which resulted in the overthrow of the remaining carpetbag regimes in the south.
1888, 2000 and 2016 were all essentially anomalies.
But the thing to take away is that in 230 years and 58 Presidential elections, the Electoral College has functioned exactly ONCE as the founders intended, due to unique circumstances unlikely to be ever repeated.
An absolutely nonsensical and patently ridiculous system. Why bother having an election at all; just randomly select a group of people who can decide who becomes president.
It really becomes dangerous too as I stated earlier. In my home state, I could see the legislature appointing electors based on a loyalty oath to the party.
It’s pretty bad here.
I think it was a decent system in the early part of the republic.
It’s just antiquated now.
It’s important to note that all the nonsense some spout about the EC ensuring the coastal states and urban centers don’t dominate elections is just that. At the time, all of the states were coastal states, and there weren’t the kind of urban centers we have today. What the founders wanted was for the people to select well-informed and respected people to choose a President on their behalf. Given the distances involved, and the lack of transportation and information networks like we have today, could you imagine how long it would have taken to count popular votes?
I think it would violate the letter and spirit of The Constitution to force the electors to vote contrary to how their state voted.
George Washington Won the presidency unanimously twice, who needs popular votes when we are talking about the father of the country.
The question being posed is whether states have to authority to instruct the electors on how they will vote, or if the electors cannot be bound at all on how to vote.
Either they do or they don’t.
No, what’s being discussed is whether or not electors can be forced to vote for a candidate that did not win their state.
That may be what is being discussed here, but the case has little to do with the voting state compact. Although it would have ramifications for it.
The question in the case is whether the 10th amendment allows for states to make electors bound to their state’s vote, or if the electors are “free” to vote for anyone regardless of who the people voted for when the 12th amendment outline the process.
I believe that the 10th amendment argument should win the day, but who knows. If they rule for the 12th amendment, it will certainly open Pandora’s box, and who knows where we will end up.
The 10th did not repeal or modify the process as laid out in The Constitution nor was there any intent for it to do so.
The 10th is limited to things that are not delegated to the Federal Gov’t in The Constitution.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The question is whether states can direct the electors to vote for a specific candidate through laws or not. That is it.
The process for the EC is outlined in The Constitution, thus delegating that power to the Federal Gov’t, not the states.
If it is not specified in the constitution, who has the power?
The people or the states. The process for the EC is delegated to the Fed’s not the states or people.
So the federal government can change the EC whenever they want?
Actually it seems the case is about whether not they can impose fines for it.
But the method of choosing said electors is up to the state.
Very complicated case.
This case goes well beyond the fines imposed. Just like loving v Virginia.
Can a elector elected by a majority of votes in a state for one candidate switch to another one on whim?