Compelling Policy Question: When debating reforming the Electoral College, should the object be change or continuity?

Policy Case Study:

H.R. No. 172 "proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in relation to the election of President and Vice-President, providing for their election by a majority of the votes of the people, and the abolition of the electoral college."

(excerpts)

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled ... That the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States be proposed to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said legislatures, shall become and be a part of the Constitution, namely:

Article XVI.

The second and third divisions of the article second (the parts of the Constitution that established the Electoral College) shall be struck out.

(The first half) of the twelfth amendment of the Constitution .... be struck out and the following substituted:

Hereafter the President and Vice-President of the United States shall be chosen by the people of the respective States in the following manner:

The citizens of each State who shall be qualified to vote for members of Congress, shall ... cast their votes by ballot for candidates for President and Vice-President...

....

The person having the greatest number of votes cast in all the States for President, shall be President, if such number be equal to a majority of the whole vote given; but, if no person have such a majority, then a second election shall be held ... between the persons having the two highest numbers for the office of President, ... and the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be President.

Historic Context:

*Needs to be completed

The presidential election of 1876, between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes resulted in confusion on election day. The electoral votes from South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon were all brought into question because in each State two different groups of Electors sent in their ballots to Congress. To solve the confusion created during the counting of ballots, Congress created the Electoral Commission Act. This Commission included five senators (three Republicans, two Democrats), five representatives (three Democrats, two Republicans), and five Supreme Court justices (two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent) to decide which votes to count. The Commission ended up voting 8-7 to award the votes, and the Presidential victory to Hayes. To gain Democratic support for the outcome Hayes agreed to an unwritten deal that would lead to Federal Troops being pulled out of the South, effectively ending Reconstruction.

Section One Guiding Question: Why do some people think change should be the goal of reforming the Electoral College?

In 1877, the North American Review published an article by the Republican Senator from Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, in which he said...

(excerpts / link to full article)

The imperfections in our National Constitution … should command the attention of the American people. …

….

[T]he theory of our fathers in regard to the electoral college originated in a profound distrust of the people...

....

True democracy consists in a government of the people and by the people ... The amendment proposed is, to abolish the electoral college, to brush away rubbish, and bring the election of President to the people … As the matter now stands ... it is a vote by states, and not a vote of the people. ... If in the State of New York ... the electors on one side have a majority of one hundred, they get the whole vote of the State ... and the voice of more than two millions of people is silenced.

.…

It is entirely possible for a man to get enough electoral votes to elect him President … while his antagonist may ... have a majority of half a million or a million of the popular vote. This is not true Democracy; it is not true Republicanism; it is complex and complicated machinery, by which a minority may thus control a majority.

Thomas Nast’s “The Electoral Vote” was first published in Harper’s Weekly on January 27th, 1877.

Section Two - Guiding Question: Why do some people think continuity should be the goal when debating reforming the Electoral College?

The New York Times published an article in 1880, titled “A Popular Election of President” (excerpts/ link to full article)

Mr. Townshend, Democrat , of Illinois, has introduced in the House of Representatives a resolution to ... abolish the Electoral College. ... The whole scheme of elections by means of Electors is beyond doubt, as it now stands, a defective and dangerous one.

….

And the only ... (solution) is to abolish the system, and substitute (one) for it ... For this purpose two general principles may be adopted. One is, that the President and Vice-President shall be chosen directly by a mass vote of the people… (This plan) would, however, be a complete abandonment of the federal system. It would leave the States as such entirely without a voice in the election of President and Vice-President

It would ultimately require the establishment of a Federal election machinery …. [I]t would lead to an enormous concentration of purely political power in Congress ... It would also, naturally encounter opposition in those States where the two Electors at Large give considerable relative superiority to the States. ... It is hardly conceivable that any ... States would consent to such a sacrifice. ... [A]ny proposition to elect a President by a strict majority vote would be extremely difficult ... to adopt.

….

On June 26, 1877, the N.Y. Daily Graphic printed a cartoon titled, “Alas, the Woes of Childhood,”

Explanation: The cartoon was published with this caption, supposedly uttered by Democrat “Sammy” Tilden: “Boo-Hoo! Ruthy Hayes’s got my presidency, and won’t give it to me.”

Results & Consequences of the Debate

*Needs to be completed

*Special Thanks for their help with the creation of this lesson is owed to

Dr. Alex Keyssar, the Matthew W. Stirling Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy. (author of a great book titled "Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College?" which can be found here

Dr. Jeffrey Engel, the founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University.

James P. Pfiffner, the Professor Emeritus in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.

All three of these scholars provided invaluable advice and guidance in my research on the Electoral College, and pursuit of documents to be used in the lesson.