“While the people have had nothing to fear from the Constitution, the Constitution has often had a good deal to fear from the people and their public servants. False constructions, loose official interpretations, departures from the intent and spirit of many of its provisions, the strifes of parties, the antagonisms of sections, the conflicts of local interests, the ambition of individuals – these and many other causes for which the Constitution itself is not responsible have at different times powerfully contributed to bring this nearly perfect system of government into much peril.”
“An evil that has been growing in magnitude for a period of about fifty years, and which is today one of the most serious and menacing of all the causes that may finally lead to an overthrow of this form of government. I allude to the abuses of the electoral system – abuses of the machinery which the Constitution established for constituting the executive head of the government.”
“The design of this intermediate body was twofold: first, to avoid the tumults that might attend a direct vote of the people for a chief executive officer to whom such great powers were to be committed; and, second, to enable the functionaries called electors to exercise a deliberate and independent choice from among the public men of the country for an office of so much dignity and authority.”
“They so framed the electoral machinery that in subsequent elections the choice would, as they believed, take place without any moral or any other kind of instruction to compel the selection of the individual to fall upon a previously designated person.”
“It was foreseen that questions of administration and public policy would necessarily lead to the formation of parties; and it is quite certain that one of the chief reasons for interposing a body of electors by whom the office of President was to be filled was to avoid in some degree the dictation and control of Parties, and to allow some scope for the voice of minorities in the electoral colleges”
“When we interpret the text of the electoral system we know by historical facts and contemporary documents and discussions, there can be no doubt that one of the chief purposes of this system was to have the President appointed by public functionaries who should act without the control of “positive instruction” (Party influence) respecting the individual for whom they were to cast the votes of their states.”
“It is simply an abuse of the electoral system, as it was originally designed to operate, to have the electors put under a moral, an honorary, or any other obligation not in any case to vote for any person but the individual who is designated, or, as it is called, “nominated,” by a party convention.”
“All nominations which operate finally as “positive instruction” to the state electors, are bad because they lead to intrigue, to the exclusion of the best men, to more or less of corruption, and, therefore, a violation of the original design of the electoral system.”
“The convention system is an irresponsible body, unknown to the Constitution or the laws, the creature of usage only, and organized by the action in primary assemblies of probably not a tenth part of the American people. Delegates to conventions come with “positive instruction” from political cabals which appointed them to secure the nomination of a particular individual, who may or many not be a person of national reputation [or character]. Other delegates are under the influence of a device called “unit rule,” whereby the whole vote of the delegation is thrown by a majority of its members, an ingenious plan for suppressing the voices of the minority of the delegation in the final count of the votes of the whole convention.
The assembly is usually convened in some very large building which admits of enormous crowds in its galleries; and these crowds often partake of some of the characteristics of a mob. Wise deliberation and conscientious action have been impossible under such circumstances; and it has sometimes happened that the presiding officer has been unable to distinguish between the decisions of the body itself and the decisions of the surrounding vociferous mob.
If money is not used, and used in large sums, to buy votes, these bodies have been belied for many years. The probability is that for at least twenty years, in the nominating conventions of both political parties, money has been a factor. But these transactions are conducted so that they are unknown to any but the vendors and purchasers of the votes.
Very little is heard of the solid grounds on which the public character of a statesman ought to be able to challenge public confidence; very little of the qualities which should fit a man for the office. Nearly the whole force of a political party is expended in calculation of what is called the “strengths” of the dominant, prominent men of the Party. This curious quality of political strength excludes the personal fitness of a man to be President of the United States and includes his capacity to win more votes than anyone else.
If the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen these results they never would have established such a system. We have wandered so far from the principles of the Constitution – they are so little understood at the present day by the great body of citizens – that perhaps the statement that the Constitution does not intend that the President shall be exclusively designated by popular vote will cause some surprise.
After the most laborious and careful consideration, the plan was adopted of electors to be appointed by the different states according to the ratio of their representation in Congress with the intent that they should make their choice upon high public motives without “positive instruction” (Party influence), pledge, or obligation binding them to vote for a specific person. A body of electors whose calm and sound judgment might be relied upon to prevent the executive office from falling into the hands of men of great personal popularity, or influence, or distinction, not accompanied by high qualifications for its duties.
It was certainly intended that the electors should exercise a real choice; that they should weigh the sense of the people but not be controlled by it if a sound judgment of the public good required them to disregard it. They were to be the agents of the people in choosing a President, but not to be their agents for the inevitable selection of a particular individual.
This wise and careful institution has lost its purpose. The electors exercise no choice, no judgment, no volition. They come into official existence pledged to vote for a particular candidate, and they are assumed to be dishonorable men and traitors to their Party if they do not obey its behest.
It has fared no better with the people. The candidate for whom the electors are expected and required to vote is not only designated before they have assembled but he is designated by a body that is unknown to the law, that derives its existence and authority from those who choose to get together and institute it, and who are, too, a numerical minority of the political party in whose name they claim to act. But notwithstanding the total want of all proper authority, notwithstanding the fact that the primary assemblies which appoint the delegates to the nominating conventions notoriously embrace but a small part of the voters of a party, the power of these conventions is immense.
The people have lost all proper freedom of choice in casting their own votes. By that is meant that the people, or a majority of them, express their preferences by their votes. They have no opportunity for such an expression. They are just as much debarred from all proper freedom of choice as if a foreign army, able to overrun the country were to land on our coast and say “Choose for your executive one of two men whom we present to you.” The people do not choose the President; they choose which of two “candidates” offered shall be President and that is all.
Instead of seeing the men of the highest caliber willing to assume high office, we are seeing these nominations distributed as empty honors among the politicians, as Party favors to men who make as good machines as anybody.
Now, electors are chosen by a plurality vote of the people, the entire electoral vote of that state is now cast for a candidate who may not be the choice of a majority of all the voters.
So long as spoils remain the objective of Party exertion, so long as the control of public patronage is coupled as a means of public patronage [government jobs], we will have conventions. The vice of the system is the absolute dictation to the electors, which makes it impossible for them to think of but one candidate for the office.
Give due weight to all those considerations of character, integrity and capacity which ought to govern their votes in choosing some qualified statesman, and he will not be obliged to consider how his is to pay his political debts, for he will have none to discharge.” – George Ticknor Curtis: Presidential Elections and the Spoils System, November 1884
SEE Also: “The Parties vs. The People” by Mickey Edwards
