Debunking the Misconception: The Electoral College and Slavery

The Electoral College: A Controversial Topic

Since the 2000 presidential election, there has been a growing sentiment among some political factions that the Electoral College is an outdated system, a remnant of slavery. This line of thinking suggests that if President Donald Trump were to be re-elected without securing the popular vote, these criticisms would likely intensify. Recently, the New York Times published an article criticizing the Constitution and claiming that the sole purpose of the Electoral College was to safeguard slavery. However, these criticisms are often based on misunderstandings and a disregard for the underlying structure of the Constitution.

Understanding the History

The current method of electing the president is a result of compromise. The founding fathers agreed on a system that allowed states to have a say in the presidential election. The Constitution allocates a certain number of electors to each state, and the states are then responsible for selecting these electors. During the constitutional convention, a popular vote would have favored the North due to its larger population of free individuals. This is why the South advocated for a system that based the electoral vote on the total population, including slaves. However, the Electoral College system did not inherently favor slavery. It would have been possible to have an Electoral College system that did not consider slaves when allocating electors. Therefore, it was the infamous two-thirds clause, which counted slaves when distributing electors, that protected slavery. Furthermore, even if slavery had never existed, it is unlikely that the states would have agreed to a presidential election system that did not allow them to have a say. The protection of state sovereignty and the influence of less populous states were crucial aspects of the compromise. Therefore, while slavery may have been a factor in the compromise, it was not the sole reason.

The Merits of the Electoral College

The method of electing the president through state delegations might have been a compromise, but that does not diminish the merits of the system. These merits include geographic representation and respect for state sovereignty, even if one believes that the Electoral College is a legacy of slavery. In a country as large and diverse as the United States, representation based on geographic segments of the population is far superior to the potential chaos of a purely popular vote. The United States is not a homogeneous society. Life and perspectives vary based on location, particularly when considering the differences between state governments, which attract different types of people. A system based solely on the popular vote would allow densely populated cities to dominate, which is problematic when urban populations often want to impose their culture and policy preferences on others. On the other hand, rural populations generally prefer to be left alone. This is evident in the way Democrats often advocate for national regulation by the federal government. Regardless of political leanings, giving different geographic elements of the nation and the states a voice on national matters can help to prevent the majority from steamrolling political minorities. Moreover, the United States would not exist without the states themselves. Our federalist system allows for better representation of different segments of our population, which in turn allows for better governance. The states, as separate sovereigns, must have a say in who becomes president. The Electoral College also influences the politics of presidential campaigns. Candidates must consider the views held in different states, particularly those voters in less partisan swing states. This political circumstance diffuses power and reduces the focus on densely populated cities, allowing for perspectives outside of the urban thought bubble to participate.

The Electoral College: Undemocratic or Misunderstood?

A common criticism of the Electoral College is that it is undemocratic. However, the American government was never intended to be purely democratic. Democracy is an important component of our constitutional republic, but the protection of liberty and individual rights are more important than the ability of the majority to impose their will. Furthermore, the president is not supposed to be a representative of the people in our constitutional system. That is the role of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the argument against the Electoral College is not just against our Constitution’s federalist principles, but also against the Constitution’s separation of powers. While the Electoral College system may not be perfect, it is far superior to an election by direct popular vote, which disregards our federalist principles.

Bottom Line

The debate around the Electoral College is complex and multifaceted. While some view it as a relic of slavery, others see it as an essential part of our constitutional system that respects state sovereignty and prevents the tyranny of the majority. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe the Electoral College is a necessary component of our election process, or do you think it's time for a change? Share this article with your friends and let's continue the conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, delivered to your inbox every day at 6pm.