The Constitution provides that: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.” This is the clause that establishes the Electoral College system. Why use this manner rather than a popular vote of the people? It goes to the very fundamental nature of the democratic system, checks and balances. The Legislative System is entirely elected by popular vote. Each state holds elections and Representatives and Senators are chosen by popular vote to represent the people in the centralized government. The federal judicial system is entirely appointed; the executive branch makes appointments and the legislative branch approves the appointments. The executive branch on the other hand is meant to be the representative of the states.
An individual is best represented at the state level. For the most part, ours is a government where the central, federalized, government leaves the states to rule for themselves. The federal branches only interfere, in theory, where one state’s action would impact another state, or for the benefit of all the states. If a citizen wants action that directly affects him, he can vote for his governor, or mayor, or towns’ select-man or whatever local government exists. On the other hand, the federal government merely tells states what they can and cannot do; in theory, it has no (or at least very little) direct influence over the individual. At the time the constitution was written this was even more pronounced as the taxing clauses were mostly unused and federal subsidies were non-existent. As a result, the executive branch was deemed to be the mouthpiece of the states that would check the mouthpiece of “the people” in the federal system, the legislature. The veto power was vested in the President because ultimately it is the states that the federal government controls, not the people.
The Governor of each state appoints members to sit on the state’s electoral college. Each state gets a number of votes in the Electoral College equivalent to the number of representatives (a popularly represented group determined by the population of the state who represent each local interest) plus the number of senators (those that represent the interests of the whole state). In this way, the state appoints its officers to elect the president on its behalf. The members of the Electoral College are, of course, free to vote in way they see fit and in most states every member of that state’s Electoral College vote as determined by the popular vote in that state. This is all the popular vote is for in a Presidential election; to determine how that state’s Electoral College members should vote. In deed, the State could develop a system whereby the Governor simply tells the Electoral College how to vote and this would be Constitutional. The people are not voting for their representative, the President, as the head of the executive branch, does not represent the people, he represents the states. The Speaker of the House and President of the Senate represent the people. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court represents the non-partisan judiciary. Each of these people stand on equal footing in the governing process, with the caveat that the President gets to veto the legislature because ultimately the federal government rules the states. The judiciary simply ensures that the each group does not over-step its bounds. The states rule the people.
Recently there has been a movement in the United States (note: United STATES, not United PEOPLE) to remove the Electoral College system. Most see it as an inequitable façade and an impediment to the wishes of the people. Given the above, I fail to see how this is the case. It is what it is. It is the system by which states elect the President. A popular vote for the President is not necessary, and would throw the system of checks and balances out of balance. If the President were popularly elected, he would, then be the voice of the people and the people would control all aspects of the government, leaving out the interests of the state from the federal government.
What interests do the states have that cannot or should not be expressed by the people? First and foremost, the states have an entire executive system charged with enforcing state laws that need to be considered separate of the will of the people for the purposes of domestic tranquility. Take, for example, the Patriot Act. At the urging of the President Congress passed a bill establishing the regulations that consist of the Patriot Act because the President believed that the federal government, and the state enforcement systems needed the things outlined, sometimes to the detriment of the People. It is the responsibility of the Congress, not the President, to determine the needs of its constituents and properly balance proposed legislation in the best interests of the people. If the bill unfairly affects the people, it is the responsibility of the representatives and senators to ensure that the people are adequately protected. The President’s job is to ensure that the legislation is properly imposed on the states where it will be the State’s duty to implement and execute that directive (if appropriate).
If the President were in charge of the will of the People, he must consider the need of the people rather then the need of the state when determining whether to veto given legislation. Not only is this determination duplicative, it removes the State interest in governing itself from the equation, and is improperly determined. One person cannot be responsible for the will of 250 million people; it is physically impossibly and logically unwise. As it is, one person is responsible for the will of approximately 20,000 people (the approximate number of people each representative represents). If the people take issue with legislation passed by Congress, it is the duty of the people to complain to their representatives and senators, those responsible for the will of the people.
But, the complaint is, that the people should not be ruled by a person whom they did not elect. But, that’s obviously the point. The people did not elect the person, the states did. That one state has more people than another is largely a matter of chance. If we remove the Electoral College, the whole function of the state within the federal system is removed. If the state is removed from the federal system, what good is the federal system? If it simply becomes a large state ruled by the will of the people, why have states at all? The United States would simply become the United People of America with 50 very large counties.
