Every American voted for the same candidate last election: nobody. The way our Constitution is set up, the President of the United States not chosen by the populace, but by winning a majority of votes in the electoral college.

Perhaps nothing about the Constitution is as misunderstood as the Electoral College. Why was it established? How does it work? Should it be abolished? There is a common cry nowadays to abolish the Electoral College to make way for a “fairer” system. Those who advocate such either do not understand the purpose of the Electoral College, or are willing to disregard the intent of the founding fathers of our nation in order to support an ideology. It is a fundamental distinction between the understanding of those who view our nation as a democracy or who recognize it as a republic.

The Constitution specifies that every electoral cycle, a group of representatives was to be chosen, by the states, to vote on who would be the President. These representatives, called electors, were to meet and from amongst the candidates presented, decide on a President.

You may notice a few things about this system. First of all, the electors were to be chosen by the states. There is no mention of how the states were to select the electors. Secondly, the electors were to decide for themselves who would be President, not merely reflecting the will of the voting populace. Thus, the electors have the power to select a President that may not be wanted by the majority of the populace. Why would the founders implement such a strange and unfair system?
 
              It was to ensure republicanism, which the founders believed was the best form of government. They were NOT in favor of democracy. The founders were well aware of the notion that democracies are the most desirable form of government, and they opposed it. They tried to establish means to avoid the US becoming one. This can be explained by summing up how Socrates considered the matter:

-In a democracy each citizen has equal voice.
-If each citizen has equal voice, each citizen has equally valuable political views.
-If each citizen has equally valuable political views, no citizen is better equipped to lead. -If all citizens are equally equipped to lead, there is no need to elect a leader for one can be randomly appointed merely to rubber stamp the will of the populace.

After all, if a candidate should merely represent their constituents, then what is the point of having differences in leaders? Does their viewpoint on “the issues” even matter? This is the fundamental ideal and flaw of democracy. It is interesting to point out here that almost 100% of politicians these days don’t claim to be governing well, they claim to represent their constituents.

In other words, if majority rules, then what is to stop the majority from making bad decisions? Hypothetically, the entire United States may want to take Bill Gates' wealth for "compassionate" purposes, but does that mean we have the right to do it? The founders established a republic so that wise men would be chosen to lead. The Electoral College was meant precisely to prevent the "One Man, One Vote" as it applies to presidential elections.

Simply put, democracies are majority rule. Even with checks and balances built into the system, and a Bill of Rights that is supposed to limit the government despite the will of the majority, there is no guarantee of good government with a simple majority rule.

Republics, on the other hand take a lesson from Plato. In his utopian republic, the class of rulers was not those who were the strongest, nor those who garnered the most public support. The rulers were the philosophers. They would be people who would make decisions after carefully examining alternatives, and using their wisdom to come to the best result. The principle he espoused in making such a choice was that those who would rule the wisest would rule. See the difference?

The Electoral College was established so that the wisest, most respected individuals from the community could gather and consider in depth the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. Because of their experience and wisdom, their selection of President would be more informed, and therefore better, than the average citizen. It was a safeguard of the Republic.

But there is another reason for the Electoral College. You will notice that the states were to choose the electors, usually appointed by the legislatures. Even the electors were not to be chosen directly by the populace. We are all familiar with the concept of separation of powers of the constitution. We can probably also recite the checks each branch of Government. The President has to have his court nominations approved by the Congress, Congress passes the laws but the President can veto them, etc… But there is a fourth, lesser known way the federal government was intended to be checked by the separation of powers. It was the separation of State vs. Federal power. As men in positions would be reluctant to give up their power to another branch of government in the proscribed branches, so would states be reluctant to give up their power to the federal government. The Electoral College was established because the states ACTING AS states were supposed to choose the President; just the same way they were intended to choose their own senators. But the tendency of the electors to merely reflect the votes of their states has not only eliminated the principle of republicanism in the electoral college, but they no longer represent the view of the states as represented by their own Constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government. Every schoolchild can explain that the house of representatives was supposed to represent the people, and the Senate the states, but since senators are now elected by popular vote, that check is no longer in place either.

Why is this important? This is based on the principle that the more local the government, the more receptive to the will of the people. As Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture to President Eisenhower explained:

“It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the individual, free citizens functioning in their respective groups of family, church, voluntary service organizations, etc. If they cannot solve the problem, next to be considered should be the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job, only then should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom.

Thomas Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way:

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.”

It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states."

The communities were to select the wisest from among them to represent them in a republican fashion at the state level. Those who had been entrusted with this responsibility at the state level would be in a better position to select the state’s electors, who would then be in position to wisely choose the President. It was to be a purely pragmatic, intellectual, and thoughtful selection. There were to be no political panderings involved. How far we have strayed…

One final thought on the value of the Electoral College as it was established, not as currently practiced. There are those who believe that the two party system is beneficial. If there are only two parties to pick from, naturally one will have a majority. When multiple parties are involved, one can gain undue influence without a majority of the vote. Such was the way Hitler gained power with only 33% of the vote in the Weimar Republic. On a more theoretical basis, a two party system allows for the maintenance of the “progressive/reactionary” dynamic, which is considered the essence of representative government, much more so than the “left/right” distinction. Isn’t a two party system desirable?

 The founders were likewise opposed to what they termed "the spirit of party." Not only does loyalty to a party put the interests of good government at risk, the consensus required to make sure a good candidate was elected was already provided for in the constitution. First, as already explained, the electors would be wise men who would choose the best candidate, not just the ones with the most donations or latest headline to sway an uninformed and easily swayed populace (just watch the polls before an election. Even days beforehand, people still declare themselves “undecided”). Secondly, if there was not a candidate that did not get a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives, acting as states, was to choose from the top 5 already chosen by the electors. This presupposes one important idea: that there would be more than two parties to pick from.

If this were followed today, rather than merely deciding between the lesser of two evils, as many people view our election system to be, we could truly vote for those we would like to hold the office. Rather than “one person, one vote,” we could, for example, rank 10 candidates by whom we would most like to win to who we would not like. Then the candidate with the most support from the most people could be chosen. This is the same process we use in primaries, why could it not be applied to the general election by electors?

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, it is reported that Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government had been achieved. His reply “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Those who would abolish the Electoral College are well on their way to losing it.