That's not the argument that was used in 1789. Not in the Federalist papers, anyway (maybe you have some other source you're thinking of?). The arguments for the electoral college were:
- A small group of capable, well-informed men--electors--were best suited to choosing a President. ("A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.")
This is irrelevant now, since electors have virtually no autonomy and, indeed, are generally hyperpartisans selected for exactly that reason. Electors don't choose, the popular vote in a state instead chooses the slate of electors, whose choice for President is a forgone conclusion.
- A popular selection of several intermediary electors was thought to prevent the "tumult and disorder" that might accompany a vote for just one man. ("The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. ")
Again, irrelevant in the modern day since people do effectively vote for one man instead of selecting a number of intermediaries--can anyone call to mind the names of all the electors they voted for in 2008?
- Electors would be independent and difficult to corrupt. ("They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. . .Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.")
Since electors today are generally chosen by political parties (pre-existing bodies), their role today is generally specifically to prostitute their votes, not offer an independent judgment of the candidates. - The people ought to choose. (". . . the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves . . . This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.") A bit of a strange conclusion, but not an argument that strikes out against a popular vote for President.
The original arguments for the Electoral College argued for it as it originally functioned, not as it functions today. But none of the arguments were based on trying to give smaller states disproportionate influence. Nor is it clear that in practice it does that, nor that it should do that.
Last edited:
