What would Alexander Hamilton think were he alive today? I doubt he ever dreamed he’d be the subject of a musical whose ticket price could rival a car payment, and that his Federalist papers would fuel a national movement of electors to upend the results of an election hundreds of years later.
But the astute Hamilton always was ahead of his time.
For the second time in the last 16 years, the electoral tally contradicts the popular. There is sharp public discussion about whether electors are free to vote their consciences.
Donald Trump leads 306 to 232
One Republican elector who fears a Trump presidency told The New York Times he won’t vote for Donald Trump because of personal doubts about Trump’s fitness.
This “faithless elector,” someone who does not vote for the winner in his state, traces roots to the founder Hamilton, who distrusted the popular will. In the famous essays called The Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote in #68 that the Electoral College determines whether candidates are qualified. Hamilton cautioned against “foreign influence” and “demagoguery” and someone with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” In Hamilton’s thinking, the selection should be “made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.”
No federal law binds electors to their state’s popular vote. But 29 states and the District of Columbia do control how electors vote. Yet that also means in 21 states, electors are free to vote for whomever they please without legal repercussion. A listing of states with bound electors appears here. Texas is not one of them.
Is what some electors want legal? Is it wise?
Does the Constitution legally empower the electors on December 19 to disregard the popular vote to substitute their own judgment about who is fit to be president? The language of the Constitution’s 12th Amendment suggests it does. And in states with unbound electors, they are free to vote as they please. Could Trump be upended? Legally, yes.
But what is legal is not always what is wise. The framers’ intent for the Electoral College, as expressed by Hamilton and the Constitution itself, is unusable in our political society, in the History Dr’s humble opinion. They couldn’t imagine such a vast, complex nation as ours nor our tradition of popular voting.
The founders didn’t even envision citizens voting for president! Electors were chosen by state legislatures, elitist institutions themselves. We conclude that the role of elector should remain a ceremonial role. Faithless electors undermine the system’s continuity and stability.
You are, of course, free to disagree, and I hope if you do, you will comment. Let’s have a debate.
If you found this post stimulating, please share it. You can review the History Dr on its Facebook page and see videos by the History Dr on its YouTube channel.