Let’s Keep the Electoral College (Part 2) by Miguel A. Faria, MD

The American Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic with a federal system of government—that is, a national government vis-à-vis state governments. This federal system incorporated a series of checks and balances with separation of powers and both direct and indirect legislative representation. Within the conceptual framework, an Electoral College was created, which has served the United States well for over two centuries. The Electoral College is important to presidential elections because it gives every state, large or small, a major stake in the election.

Some Citizens Misunderstand the Electoral College

Notwithstanding the benefits derived from the Electoral College system, articles and editorials written by those who preferred to do away with Electoral College system frequently appear in major newspapers. Consistently using the same catchwords or phrases, the writers yearned to “move forward” and adopt a “one person, one vote” type of direct election process. At least three such editorials appeared in a The Telegraph, my local Georgia newspaper.

Although the editorials sought to explain how the Electoral College process worked and why the Founding Fathers created the system for presidential elections, they were not always accurate. For example, one writer wrote that, “The framers…felt the common, every day, average, eligible voter was not intelligent, well-versed, well-read and knowledgeable enough to vote for the most qualified and best candidate.” That statement was simply historically incorrect.

While it is true the Founders distrusted idle mobs and realized that demagogues could easily incite the mobs in larger cities, the vast majority of Americans in the late 18th century lived in rural districts as farmers and yeomen, working the land and living by the fruit of their labor. The founders favored a fairer geographical distribution of voting power balanced between urban and rural areas, large and small states, and highly populated and scarcely populated regions.

Besides, the Founders were well-read men, fully acquainted with the tragic, historic fate of Athenian democracy and the death knell of the Roman Republic at the hands of Roman mobs that were incited by popular demagogues and sold their votes for “bread and circuses” (panem et circenses).

On the other hand, a constitutional republic required an informed and vigilant and moral and virtuous citizenry—as John Adams clearly stated, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The framers’ faith in the vast majority of Americans became evident when they entrusted the people with the power to elect the members of the House of Representatives by direct popular vote, and in turn, the House was given “the power of the purse.” In the words of James Madison:

Who are to be the electors of the Federal [House of] Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the correspondent branch of the Legislature of the State…

Furthermore, Madison asked and answered the question about the qualifications of the candidates to be chosen for the House of Representatives:

Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession, is permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people.

During this period, most Americans were very well informed and voraciously devoured such political pamphlets as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and The American Crisis—the best sellers of the day. Later, the political articles published in newspapers and incorporated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were equally devoured by the citizenry with the same avidity that trendy Americans today consume television images and online articles about the scandalous lives of sport figures and movie celebrities.

The Founding Fathers hoped an informed populace would elect the most virtuous and capable public servants to the offices of President and Vice President as well as to the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. For example, Alexander Hamilton asserted:

This process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. …We may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

Recapitulating Federalism and Fairness

The American Founders created the Electoral College system because of the central issues of federalism and fairness—preserving the delicate geographical balance between the urban and rural populations of the small and large states in the federal union.

And yet, the newspaper commentator cited earlier further opined, “The biggest problem with the current system is the propensity for an election to take place that would elect a candidate who did not represent the demographics and wishes of the entire county, and only the sentiments of voters in the 11 most populous states.” In fact, that statement clearly demonstrates the reason to support the Electoral College and not the other way around—namely, fairness in geographic representation—not just representation of more populous states.

Another writer suggested more drastic solutions, such as changing to the aforementioned proportional representation system, or to direct popular vote. The latter proposal would require amending the U.S. Constitution through either the process of amendment ratification by three-fourths of the states or by convening a Convention of States.

A convention of states method can be hazardous too. Remember that a Convention of States was called to purportedly improve the Articles of Confederation. When the convention reconvened the following year, James Madison seized the moment to completely overturn the Articles. Led by Madison, the founders framed an entirely new document; and the convention became the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Furthermore, proportional representation with the fractional casting of a state’s Electoral College votes, as previously mentioned and worth repeating, would drastically dilute the voting strength of the individual state that foolishly adopts it, making that state irrelevant in the presidential contest.

Likewise, a direct popular election would dilute the voting strength of rural areas and less populated states. A heavily populated section of the country, like the northeast, could then realistically and unfairly determine all future presidential elections. That scenario is less likely with the Electoral College system.

It is also worth repeating that one of the safeguards in America’s constitutional republic is the Electoral College, a check against a tyranny of the majority by large populous states over both smaller states and less populous areas. Abolition of the Electoral College system would be a disaster for federalism, the careful and precise balance between geographical areas.

In conclusion, the truth is that some political pundits have conjured up a non-existent boogieman in order to circumvent safeguards in the U.S. Constitution. Their prime objective is to transform the carefully crafted Electoral College system into a quasi-European parliamentary type of system and move toward either proportional representation or direct popular election as to transform the American republic into a social democracy.

The reality has been that the Electoral College process has worked as intended and continues to function well. It has preserved the delicate geographical balance among the various urban and rural populations of the small and large states, and it has prevented small but heavily populated regions from dominating the outcome of presidential elections.

America does not need to tinker with the Electoral College system. After all, the U.S. was founded as, Benjamin Franklin stated, “a republic, if we can keep it.”

Dr. Miguel A. Faria is Associate Editor in Chief world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI) and the author of numerous books. This article is excerpted from Dr. Faria’s 2024 book Contrasting Ideals and Ends in the American and French Revolutions.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Let’s Keep the Electoral College (Part 2). HaciendaPublishing.com, March 3, 2025. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/lets-keep-the-electoral-college-part-2-by-miguel-a-faria-md/.

Copyright ©2025 HaciendaPublishing.com