The Constitution of the United States is the United States' most revered document. It has held the republic together for 235 years. Its framers hoped that what they created would lead to a"more perfect union." They were under no illusion that what they created was in any way perfect. Its preamble outlined what they hoped to achieve in the pursuit of a more perfect union by identifying what they saw as necessary goals to ensure an enduring republic.
That the Constitution was ratified at all was remarkable for the times in which it was written. It must be viewed as a rare demonstration of the commitment and trust of the wise and virtuous individuals who ratified it on behalf of the people of the United States. This is not to say, that the U.S. Constitution is perfect. Paradoxically, any sense of perfection it has is in the fact the framers and ratifiers recognized its inherent imperfections that all human endeavors encounter when planning for the future.
In my previous posts, I focused on what I consider may have been the framers intent when establishing the three branches of the federal government. Their intent appears to utilize an increasingly representative form of democracy when it came to the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. The reason for the emphasis on representative democracy at the federal level was to avoid partisan intrigue, something both the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution saw as a threat to an enduring republic.
Since I have addressed what I consider the weaknesses within the Constitution in my last two, posts I will focus on how they might be remedied in order to strengthen the republic with regard to the election of the President of the United States in particular.
AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE
If one the goals of the Constitution was to protect the republic from the corrosive effects of partisan and populist intrigue by creating a representative democracy at the federal level, it would appear that the framers dropped the ball when it came to concept of electors electing the President of the United States. Leaving the definition of the electors' role up to each state has proven to be a mistake; in that, it opened the door to what most of the framers wanted to avoid, partisan intrigue. One can understand why the framers allowed the states to define the role of the electors as a means to encourage the states in ratifying the Constitution, however, by not defining the role of the electors in the Constitution, the framers opened a Pandora's box of partisan intrigue and manipulation.
The term Electoral College is a misnomer. There is nothing collegial about the electors, as they are selected to reflect the outcome of their state's popular vote regarding a presidential election. The electors do not gather to vet nominees or elect the President. Current electors are not at liberty to go rogue and vote for their personal preference without risking replacement, fines, or even imprisonment. One might describe the current concept of an "Electoral College" as a puppet college. The way the presidential electoral system functions has perpetuated the problem of sectionalism and partisanship that has plagued the United States throughout its history.
To remedy this situation would be to establish a true Electoral College which could reduce the extreme partisan divide this nation is currently experiencing. My take on remedying the current divide is primarily to start a conversation on what I perceive to be one fundamental flaw amongst others within the Constitution. Doing so requires revisiting the intent of the framers. The exact role of the electors is very vague in the Constitution.
In my opinion, a true Electoral College requires definition in the Constitution as to its purpose and the role it plays in electing a president. It would seem the primary purpose of an Electoral College would be to ensure that any candidate for the Presidency is demonstratively qualified to be the President. Article II of the Constitution lists only three requirements for a person to become the President of the United State: The President must be natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and has been a resident living in the United States for 14 years.
John Jay, the author of "The Federalist 64" made the following statement with regard to presidential qualifications as "those who best understand our national interests . . . who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence." Jay's comment gives an idea of what the framers were aiming for when thinking of who would best serve as President. The question becomes who decides "who best understands our national interest... who best promotes those interests" and who has a "reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence?"
The framers certainly did not think the majority of the voting populace had the required understanding of our national interests to elect someone with such knowledge and integrity which one suspects is the intent behind the notion of electors. It seems the concept of electors was intended to debate and discern who best would meet such qualifications and then elect the President on behalf of the states they represented. Interestingly, the Constitution currently excludes representatives and senators from serving as electors, but who better would know the national interests and the concerns of the states they represent.
* * *
Not everyone is qualified to be the President of the United Sates. Along side the existing constitutional requirements, the Constitution could have specified that a candidate should have experience either in governance, diplomacy, or lawmaking. At the time, the framers they might have thought of that as a "no brainer." The Constitution might have required that a candidate served as a minimal of one term as either a member of the Congress of the Confederation, served as a diplomat, or as a governor of a state. This was all new turf for the framers. The thought of someone who was not educated or had not in some ways contributed to the Revolution as a leader in some capacity being the President would have never occurred to them.
Today, this nation is in a far different place than the famers could have envisioned. Today, it is evident that a candidate for the Presidency have governing, diplomatic, or law making experience at the Federal level. An Electoral College would benefit by having each state's senior Senator be that state's Elector with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as the Dean of the Electoral College.
The purpose of the Electoral College would be vetting all party nominated candidates for President who had won at least one state's open primary election (received the most popular votes)*. Failure to win a state's primary election would automatically eliminate a nominee from being a candidate. An eligible nominee's party would ensure that their nominee would submit the nominee's financial, health, tax, and voting records, diplomatic service record, and/or legislation signed into law or vetoed if a governor of a state to the College. The College would require a current background check by the FBI of all eligible nominees. The nominee's party platform would also be subjected to a constitutional review by the College.
The College might also interview all the nominee's to determine their understanding of the nation's needs and their personal vision for the nation if elected. In a closed session the College would vote on each nominee's eligibility to be a certified candidate for the Presidency by securing a simple majority of the electors' votes. Should a tie vote occur, the Dean of the College (normally a non-voting position) could cast the deciding vote. Any nominee who passes the electoral college's review will have her or his name added to the list of eligible candidates for the Presidency to be determined by popular vote in the national election. Should a nominee fail to pass the Electoral College's review, the nominee would be excluded from the list of eligible candidates in the national election. The Electoral College's ruling on eligibility would be final.
The above suggestions would require significant amendment to Constitution. As suggested earlier in this post, there are other areas of the Constitution that need adjustment after 235 years. I will address some of these in future posts.
Norm
* The concept of an open primary allows every registered voter to vote once for whichever potential nominee a party would allow on a state's primary ballot. The electoral college would limit its interest to those who would or gather the majority of a state's primary election.
No comments:
Post a Comment