Americans love their democracy, and like them or not, presidential elections are hard to avoid, even for those of us Down under.

I think the biggest problem with the Presidency is that it is popularly elected. Now, before you cringe at what seems to be a denunciation of democracy, let me explain my rationale.

Many Americans may not realize that the Electoral College was actually designed to be an undemocratic institution; the manner in which it is practised today is not true to the original intention of the college. The best example of this is in 'The Federalist No.68' in which Alexander Hamilton explains the purpose of the 'electors.' According to his view, electing ONE person was a recipe for disaster because it more likely convulsed the emotions of the wider community (which is evident with Donald Trump), so he proposed that the people choose SEVERAL persons from amongst their community to make the decisions ON THEIR BEHALF; and given that the voters would choose several persons, people were less susceptible to demagogues.

Now, you're probably thinking: "well, that already happens," but it doesn't. The biggest difference is that the Electors are PLEDGED electors, who cast their vote ACCORDING to the vote of the people. What Hamilton proposed was electors who were NOT pledged, and who exercised independent judgement on behalf of that elector's constituents. So, in short, the people would choose the electors first, and the electors would then be responsible for PROPOSING AND NOMINATING the candidates. This means that the voters don't know who will be the President when they elect the electors. Therefore, the electors have to establish credibility among the electorate as reliable and knowledgeable people. In a sense, we already elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf, such as: taxation, spending, and deploying the armed forces, so how is it really different if we choose representatives to elect the President on our behalf?

There is also another benefit of electing a smaller group of people to make the choice on your behalf. Take this example: at 'town-halls' with prospective presidential candidates, there are so many people wanting to ask questions to the candidate that they usually only get one question, with no follow-up; this makes the whole environment more controlled for the candidate, thereby resulting in less scrutiny. Contrast this with a body of 15 to 20 persons who sit down with the presidential candidate and whose sole purpose is to determine the suitability of the candidate: it would resemble a Committee in which the candidate would be subject to question after question, with numerous follow-ups from all the electors. In short, it would result in greater scrutiny over the candidate because a smaller group of people are best able to determine the candidate's suitability.

Third, and my personal perspective: a popular-election of the President upsets the 'separation of powers' doctrine. The legislative branch is supposed to be the strongest branch, but due to a popularly-elected presidency, the executive has overstepped its authority by issuing executive orders and signing statements. It also results in the office of the President being a 'political' office as opposed to a 'civil' office. Ideally, the President should be someone in the civil service, not a politician. In order to ensure this, there would need to be extra restrictions on eligibility for President.

So, what's the best way for Americans to elect their President. DON'T. Let the electors do the work for you.

Bias_2012 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:


It's true that Hamilton was a bit of an elistist. I also think there's wisdom in what he was saying about the electors. Directly electing a person often leads to a bit of a hero worship, which I think is bad.  Having electors choose the president prevents this problem. It also weakens the role of the president.