What is a discussion of the U.S. Electoral College doing in a thread about Brexit?
Anyway, in an effort to demystify the reason for this recondite provision of the U.S. Constitution, here are a few observations by the friendly folks who invented the concept.
The provision for an Electoral College, like almost every other significant part of the Constitution, was the product of considerable debate and eventual compromise. The participants in the 18th Century constitutional convention discussed various options, and essentially concluded that none was perfect: among the alternatives suggested and ultimately rejected were selection of a president ("the executive") by the national legislature, similarly to having a prime minister for a parliamentary majority organize a government in a parliamentary model; appointment by a majority of the governors of the respective states; and direct election by those eligible to vote in the various states.
As James Wilson of Pennsylvania put it, "[t]his subject has greatly divided the House, and will also divide people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide."
The issue was referred to a committee, which reported back on September 4, 1787, and recommended that
Each State shall appoint in such manner as its Legislature may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and members of the House of Representatives, to which the State may be entitled in the Legislature.
Gouverneur Morris of New York summarized the reasoning behind the concept that wound up in the proposed constitution, subsequently ratified by the states, which established the new national government:
Mr. Govr. Morris said he would give the reasons of the Committee and his own. The 1st. was the danger of intrigue & faction if the appointmt. should be made by the Legislature. 2 the inconveniency of an ineligibility required by that mode in order to lessen its evils. 3 The difficulty of establishing a Court of Impeachments, other than the Senate which would not be so proper for the trial nor the other branch for the impeachment of the President, if appointed by the Legislature, 4. No body had appeared to be satisfied with an appointment by the Legislature. 5. Many were anxious even for an immediate choice by the people— 6— the indispensable necessity of making the Executive independent of the Legislature. — As the Electors would vote at the same time throughout the U. S. and at so great a distance from each other, the great evil of cabal was avoided. It would be impossible also to corrupt them.
At various times, the existence of the Electoral College has been perceived to favor or disadvantage different parts of the country, depending on the politics of the moment. There has never been a national consensus on the desirability of eliminating it in favor of direct election of a president, despite a few occasions when its operation resulted in the election of a president who received less than a plurality of the popular vote.
In any event, the U.S. Constitution is structurally difficult to amend: either a new constitutional convention must be convened, which has never happened, or both the House of Representatives and the Senate must vote on the same amendment language by two-thirds majorities followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. This has only happened 27 times, and the first ten amendments were added just a few years after the Constitution was initially adopted in order to reinforce that certain governmental authorities were beyond the purview of the national Congress and, in some cases, even of the state legislatures.
(By the way, for those who may be interested, it is possible to follow the proceedings of the U.S. constitutional convention on a day-by-day basis thanks to a
detailed diary written by James Madison, a delegate to the convention from Virginia and later the third president of the United States.)
