The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College

Did you know that united states presidents were not always elected by popular vote, as they are today? Did you know that the person who received the seond most votes, from the electoral college, became Vice President? Did you know the electoral college is not functioning today as according to the original intent of the Constitution? Do you know how the electoral college is supposed to work? Until I was taught by Gary Alder on this subject I had a very limited understanding of the electoral college. Gary Alder has put together a very comprehensive, 55-page booklet explaining the “Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College“, I highly recommend it as an educational resource, and even a great way to teach your children these concepts.

Earl Taylor Jr., of the The National Center for Constitutional Studies, recently released a short write-up on the electoral college, based on the research and writings of Gary Alder, I recommend you read Mr. Taylor’s letter, as well as this booklet: “Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College”. This booklet is also now highly recommended by Stephen Pratt (for what it’s worth).

Link to “Elections in America – Battle of the Parties!” by Earl Taylor, Jr.

Link to “Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College” by Gary Alder

Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for …When I find out these things, when I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is…Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR 10/62:8)

They serve to organize factions…to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority…Let me… warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirity of party…The alternate domination of one faction over another, shapened by the spirit of revenge…has perperated the most horrid enormities…It [the contention between the parties] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. (Washington’s Farewell Address)

“We honor these partners [friends outside the Church] because their devotion to correct principles overshadowed their devotion to popularity, party , or personalities.

“We honor our founding fathers of this republic for the same reason. God raised up these patriotic partners to perform their mission, and he called them “wise men.” (see D&C 101:80.) The First Presidency acknowledged that wisdom when they gave us the guideline a few years ago of supporting political candidates “who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.” (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.) . . .

“Our wise founders seemed to understand, better than most of us, our own scripture, which states that “it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority . . . they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:39.)

“To help prevent this, the founders knew that our elected leaders should be bound by certain fixed principles. Said Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

“These wise founders, our patriotic partners, seemed to appreciate more than most of us the blessings of the boundaries that the Lord set within the Constitution, for he said, “And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:7.)

“In God the founders trusted, and in his Constitution—not in the arm of flesh. “O Lord,” said Nephi, “I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; . . . cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.”" (2 Nephi 4:34.) (“Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints” 59-60)

…each priesthood holder should use his influence in the community to resist the erosion process which is taking place in our political and economic life. He should use the political party of his choice to express his evaluation of important issues. He should see that his party is working to preserve freedom, not destroy it. He should join responsible local groups interested in promoting freedom and free competitive enterprise, in studying political issues, appraising the voting records and proposed programs, and writing to members of Congress, promoting good men in public office, and scrutinizing local, state, and federal agencies to see that the will of the people is being carried out. He should not wait for the Lord’s servants to give instruction for every detail once they have announced the direction in which the priesthood should go. Each member should exercise prayerful judgment and then act. [Ezra Taft Benson - God, Family, Country]

We must be devoted to sound principles in word and deed: principle above party, principle above pocketbook, principle above popularity. [Ezra Taft Benson - God, Family, Country]

“We engage in the election the same as in any other principle; you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin; to vote for wicked men, it would be sin . Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs.…. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. We want a President of the United States, not a party President, but a President of the whole people…and…. Have a President who will maintain every man in his rights .” (Hyrum Smith, 1844, DHC-6:323)

“No political party is justified to continue in existence unless it clearly states the principles which it advocates, the platform upon which its candidates stand, and then with integrity, when and if elected, carry out those principles and live up to that platform. Except that be the case, we as Latter-day Saints should not align ourselves to any party, because we do not have the basis upon which we can make an intelligent decision. We must know what they stand for before we can favor them with our vote.” (Henry D. Moyle, CR-4/52:36)

Joseph Smith was against the party system and said: “In the next canvas we shall be influenced by no party consideration…the partisans in this county who expect to divide the friends of humanity and equal rights will find themselves mistakes — we care not a fig for Whig or Democrat; they are both alike to us; but we shall go for our friends, our tried friends, and that cause of human liberty which is the cause of God. We are aware that ‘divide and conquer’ is the watchword with many, but with us it cannot be done — we love too well — we have suffered too much to be easily duped — we have no cat’s paws amongst us. [Times & Seasons - 3:651]

No nation ever created a position of power quite like that of the “President of the United States.” In fact, the power connected with this office has grown enormously. At the outset of the Washington terms in the Presidency, there were approximately 350 civilians employed by the existing administrative offices. Today the number of civilian employees stands at 2.5 million and more than three million men and women serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. Relatively few of these are employed in the District of Columbia. Approximately 10 percent of the civilian employees and a much smaller percentage of the military personnel are found within the immediate vicinity of Washington, D.C. The others are spread throughout the 50 states, American territories overseas, and in foreign countries. 1

How the Thinking of the Founding Fathers Changed

If the Constitution had been written in 1776 instead of 1787, the office of President would have been little more than that of a clerk saddled with the responsibility of routinely carrying out the will of Congress. The founders were suspicious of”Executives.” In fact, nearly all of the new States originally wrote their State constitutions with very weak powers granted to their governors. They were suffering from a backlash growing out of their bitter experience with the arbitrary, autocratic and highhanded policies of George III. Pennsylvania went further than any of the States by having no governor at all. She arranged to run her affairs with an executive committee of the legislature.

Ten years later, however, most of the leaders on both the State and national level had come to the conclusion that public affairs cannot be administered efficiently by legislative committees or weak executives. Sufficient power and responsibility must be lodged in one person to get the job done. Deciding just how that special person should be selected and precisely what powers should be delegated to him, created a furor of debate in the Constitutional Convention. It occupied more time than any other subject. Some even doubted that the presidential powers should be entrusted to one man.

How Many Presidents Should We Have?

At this point in time it may seem rather ridiculous to wonder how many Presidents we should have in charge of the Executive Branch of the government. The answer seems so obvious. But it was not so obvious in 1787. James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed that there should be a single, strong President operating within a carefully defined framework of limited authority. However, Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, was most insistent that there should be three Presidents: one to represent New England, one to represent New York and the middle States, and one to represent the South. Hamilton, along with many others, thought this was totally unrealistic. He felt that the experience of the young country had already demonstrated the need for a leader who could handle the country’s offices with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” He also agreed with James Wilson of Pennsylvania that “plurality tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.”

It was finally decided that a single President would be chosen with strong powers but restricted to tightly limited, well-defined areas.

How Long Should the President Serve?

Hamilton felt that once a good man had been chosen he should be allowed to serve during “good behavior” or for life. Wilson felt this would never do and recommended three years as the President’s term of office with authorization to run for re-election if he desired. George Mason of Virginia favored a single term of seven years without allowing the President to succeed himself. He felt this was important so that the President would not waste his time as the chief executive campaigning for another election.

One of the reasons a number of delegates favored a long term for the President was because they expected Washington to occupy this high office and they wanted him to serve as long as possible. However, after extensive debate it was finally concluded that the term should be for only four years and the President should be restricted to only one term of office. The convention noted that Washington voted against the single term, however, and it was assumed that he felt it would take longer than four years to get the new government into operation. Consequently, when the Constitution was written in its final form, no reference was made to the number of terms a President could serve. In practice, two terms were as long as any President served prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt who died in office during his fourth term. His own party immediately initiated an amendment to the Constitution limiting all future Presidents to two terms.

How Should the President Be Selected?

Even today people are still arguing over the best way to elect a President. At the Constitutional Convention every possible angle was explored. Some thought he should be selected by the House of Representatives. Others preferred the Senate. When it was pointed out that if either of these bodies appointed the President it would violate the principle of “separation of powers,” the suggestion was made that the governors of the various States should make the selection. This, too, met with objections.

It is interesting to note that very few of the delegates were in favor of a popular election of the President. Hamilton felt that if the masses of the people were required to elect the President, the whole fiasco would end in a “tumult and disorder.” Nevertheless, they wanted a system which gave proportional representation to the people in choosing the President. They had confidence in the people electing local and State representatives but thought it would be impossible for all of the people to know all of the Presidential candidates sufficiently well to make an intelligent choice.

It was therefore decided to have the States elect representatives or “electors” in whom they had confidence, and these could then investigate the candidates and make the final selection. This body of representatives has become know as the “electoral college.”

The Electoral College Had Two Weaknesses

Originally, the Constitution provided that each elector would have two votes, thereby indicating his first and second choice for President. It further provided that the candidate who had a majority of the votes would be President and the man with the next highest number of votes would be the Vice-President. In practice, this resulted in a President being teamed up with a Vice-President who might have views opposite to his own.

In fact, as soon as the party system developed, it resulted in the electors from the majority party all voting for the same two men and this created a tie which threw the election into the House of Representatives where the same majority party would continue having a tie. In 1800 the tie was between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr and the House had to ballot 35 times before the tie was finally broken. This problem was remedied by passing the Twelfth Amendment which allows each party to designate one person for President and another for Vice-President.

The Second Weakness

A second weakness in the electoral system was the concept of “winner takes all.” This means that whoever gets a majority of the electors in a particular State can claim all of the electoral votes for that State. In practice this has occasionally allowed a President to win the popular vote but lose because he had only a minority of the electoral votes. Eventually there will probably be an amendment which allows a candidate to claim the same proportion of electors as the percentage of votes won in the popular balloting vote. There would still be difficulties in close races, however, since an electoral vote representing approximately 300,000 people might be given to a Candidate who barely won over his opponent in that State.

It should be pointed out that an elector is free to vote for anyone he wishes but in practice he nearly always votes for his party’s candidates. Since 1789, only six electoral votes out of the more than 17,000 which have been cast, were independent votes.

Many people have wanted to do away with the electoral college altogether and simply choose the President on the basis of the popular vote. It seems, however, that the majority feel more comfortable with the indirect method even though it still has the one weakness mentioned above. When the electoral college issue had been tested in Congress on several occasions, it was found that although a majority was willing to do away with the electoral college, it was in no way possible to get a majority to agree on what system would be acceptable in its place.

What Powers Should Be Given The Presidency?

Now we come to the most difficult question of all. Just how much power should the President have? The specific powers granted to him were rather limited. He was authorized:

1. To be the commander-in-chief of the armed services.

2. To require reports from the principal officer of the Executive departments of government.

3. To have authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.

4. To make treaties with foreign nations providing two-thirds of the Senate concurred.

5. To appoint ambassadors, judges and the principal officers of government providing they are approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

6. To report to the Congress the state of the Union and recommend to the Congress specific legislation which needs to be passed.

7. To call the Congress into special session when emergency action is needed.

8. To adjourn the Congress when the two Houses cannot agree on the time of adjournment between themselves.

9. To receive ambassadors and public ministers from foreign nations.

10. To see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

11. To assign commissions to all officers of the United States armed services.

The loophole in the “powers of the President” is found in item number ten, which requires the President to make certain that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. This means that any act of Congress which is signed into law must be implemented with the necessary administrative machinery and a budgetary request submitted to finance it. This has resulted in the President becoming far more powerful in his executive capacity than was ever contemplated by the founding fathers. At the same time it has allowed the Congress, when dominated by a party different than the President, to take credit for all kinds of wonderful programs which are supposed to be popular with the people and then blame the President for the massive “bureaucracy” and the excessive budgetary requirements needed to carry on such programs.

How the President Became the Power-Center of the Whole World

It would be interesting to know how the American founding fathers would have reacted if someone in the Constitutional Convention had been able to disclose the fact that within 200 years the President and the Executive Branch of the United States government would have become the power-center of the whole world. Much of this has been the result of America’s economic capacity.

It was clearly demonstrated during World War II that she could speed up her free-enterprise system of industrial capacity and out-produce the rest of the world in both food and armaments. This pushed her into a dominant position at the close of the war and made the United States the peace-keeper of the world whether she liked it or not. It was inevitable that the role of President would attract a whole new dimension of power as these historical changes unfolded.

Dangerous Trends

However, dangerous precedents were soon established which gave the President maneuvering space far beyond the boundaries established by the Constitution. For the first time the President of the United State began having summit conferences with other heads of States. Formal, commitments were made at the conference or through subsequent diplomatic exchanges which took the form of “executive agreements” rather than “treaties.” Therefore they were never submitted to the Senate for discussion or approval. In 1974 there were only 13 “treaties” but there were 230 “executive agreements.” Usually the public has no way of discovering precisely what commitments have been made with these foreign countries. Nor can the Senate find out in many instances.

Another dangerous precedent has been assigning American troops to engage in hostilities without Congressional action. This has happened many times even before Korea and Vietnam.

A recent development which would have shocked the founders has been the use of American prestige to force weaker nations to accept the views of a President and his Secretary of State as to how the problems of another country should be resolved when the President and his Secretary of State have no legal or Constitutional basis for interfering. Take, for example, the current intervention of the U.S. Secretary of State in compelling a minority government of Europeans in Rhodesia to turn over its authority to a majority of natives who are completely unprepared to provide a responsible administration of the nation’s affairs. This was not only an unconstitutional exercise of executive power, but an extremely dangerous gamble as borne out by the fact that when a similar European minority government was forced out of power in Angola, the new government representing the native majority immediately set about slaughtering 10,000 fellow natives.

Political authorities have pointed out that the same tragedy may occur in Rhodesia as it evolves toward a one-man tyranny just as other African countries have done when political power has been turned over prematurely to unprepared native majorities. But even if the outcome were more promising, the fact remains that the Constitution never delegated to the United States President the authority of imposing a majority form of government on the whole world. Were that the case, what must be said about Russia, China, Cuba, and a host of other nations which are not only ruled by minorities but by brutal dictatorships?

Congressional Reaction

Gradually Congress has become aware that its checks-and-balance powers have needed to be reasserted. In 1972 the Case Act was passed, which required the President to submit all international agreements to Congress “for its information.”

Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, requiring the Chief Executive to consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before committing armed forces to hostilities. If forces are ordered into action in an emergency, the matter has to be reported to Congress in 48 hours and all hostilities must cease within 60 days unless Congress has approved it.

In 1974 Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impounding Control Act which gave the Congress tighter control over expenditures and prohibits the President from impounding funds which Congress has appropriated for specific purposes which the President is not carrying out.

Increased Powers of the President In Domestic Matters

Equally dangerous precedents have been established on the home front which Congress must eventually consider. As if it were not enough for the President to be Chief of State, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services, Chief Executive Administrator of the whole federal government, Chief legislation writer, Chief diplomat, and Chief of his own party, the Congress has added a host of other responsibilities which relegates to the scrap heap many of the most fundamental concepts of the original Constitution.

Today the President is responsible for maintaining full employment for the work force of the entire nation, the task of providing for a high level of agricultural prosperity, of developing a national housing program, of supervising the exclusive distribution of atomic energy resources, of having the overwhelming responsibility of taking care of the health and social security of the aged and indigent, of settling major labor-management disputes, of rapidly taking over the States’ original jurisdiction covering insurance, unemployment, welfare, safety, environment, education, and a growing number of police powers.

That such a task is impossible and unworkable is becoming more evident with each passing day. The growing articulation of vigorous protests against overregulation, excessive red-tape, and over-taxation is inevitably going to compel the Congress to take remedial action. There is an impelling need to return to the simpler and more efficient devices of the original American life-style where most of these problems were handled far more effectively and economically by the private sector. Those problems deserving governmental intervention could also be handled more effectively if they were kept within the control of the people at the local level rather than dumping the whole gargantuan load on Washington.

All human experience demonstrates through thousands of experiments that the over-centralization of power in government stifles productivity, inhibits initiative, and debases the unalienable human rights of man. The power of the President and the Executive Branch of government is being utilized for this purpose and it is producing a deep credibility gap between Washington and the people. It is time to take an inventory of these serious aberrations in our political structure and square our shoulders to the necessity of shoring up our Constitutional foundations before they crumble beyond repair.

Examining the records of both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney reveals some important factors that should be considered. Mitt Romney did some great things as governor of Massachusetts, but he has also supported socialist viewpoints including government welfare and mandatory healthcare. Congressman Ron Paul, also known as “Dr. No”, has an outstanding record of defending freedom with 20 years of voting in congress. It’s up to you to decide which one of the candidates actually stands for the principles of freedom and the proper role of government.

meridianmagazine.com, a popular lds website, currently has a poll asking people which Republican candidate for President they would vote for. It’s no suprise that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are in the lead, however this time it’s Ron Paul in 1st place.

To my fellow Latter-day Saint brothers and sisters, this letter is a pleading with each of you to consider supporting Congressman Ron Paul in his candidacy for President of these united States of America.

Congressman Paul is THE only candidate, from either of the two major political parties, that has shown he understands the proper role of government and that he understands and adheres to the principles written in our Constitution.

All the other Republican and Democratic candidates reveal themselves as lusting for power, to be in various stages of corruption, using weasel words with coached speeches and phrases intended to deceive a dumbed-down American public. This deception is facilitated by a mainstream press that has become dominated by a corporate establishment that has a globalist agenda. This agenda requires reduced national sovereignty. All these other candidates approve of this agenda.

The only things that stand between this agenda and it’s ultimate goal of centralized global governance are:

1. a militarily strong America
2. a financially solvent America
3. an economically strong America
4. an independent America
5. and .. the Constitution of the United States of America

Congressman Ron Paul’s candidacy is a direct threat to this agenda for he alone, among these “establishment candidates,” supports all five of the above. Most importantly, his voting record as a Texas Congressman, his speeches as displayed on his website, and his responses during the primary “debates,” reveal him to be candid, honest, wise and uncorrupted by the temptations of power that swirl about Washington D.C. He understands the founding principles of this nation and has the integrity to support and defend the Constitution.

Specifically, we Latter-day Saints have been called upon to support and defend our Constitution and this nation, both of which have unique roles to play.

President Ezra Taft Benson counseled the LDS faithful as to their “civic responsibilities” in July 1972′s Ensign, writing;

“We honor our founding fathers of this republic .. God raised up these patriotic partners to perform their mission, and he called them “wise men.” (See D&C 101:80.)”

“The First Presidency acknowledge that wisdom when they gave us the guideline a few years ago of supporting political candidates ‘who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.’ (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.)”

“Our wise founders seemed to understand, better than most of us, our own scripture, which states that ‘it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority . . .they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.’ (D&C 121:39.)”

“To help prevent this, the founders knew that our elected leaders should be bound by certain fixed principles. Said Thomas Jefferson: ‘In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.’”

“These wise founders, our patriotic partners, seemed to appreciate more than most of us the blessings of the boundaries that the Lord set within the Constitution, for he said, ‘And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.’ (D&C 98:7.)”

“President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., put it well when he said: ‘God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall not run to individuals … our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens … of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up … This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this ‘land of liberty’ from other countries.’ (Improvement Era, July, 1940, p. 444.)”

“The warning of President Joseph Fielding Smith is most timely: ‘Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don’t save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government.’ Conference Report, April, 1950, p. 159.)”

“Another guideline given by the First Presidency was ‘to support good and conscientious candidates, of either party, who are aware of the great dangers’ facing the free world. (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.)”

“President Clark warned us that ‘we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we in this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known…’ (CR, April, 1944, p. 116.)”

“The Lord holds us accountable if we are not wise and are deceived.”

We LDS have received much counsel regarding our responsibilities toward government, almost too many to list in this letter, however, I add a few more:

“Next to being one in worshipping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.” (Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States. Deseret Book Co., 1966 p. 6)

“We must choose righteous men, good men to fill these positions .” . (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses. Vol. 25, p. 251)

.”.. the fundamental principle of the gospel, free agency..this principle is (1) essential to man’s salvation; and (2) may become a measuring rod by which the actions of men, of organizations of nations may be judged.” (Gospel Ideals, pp. 299-300) President David O. McKay

.” We therefore commend and encourage every person and every group who is sincerely seeking to study Constitutional principles and awaken a sleeping and apathetic people to the alarming conditions that are rapidly advancing about us.” (Improvement Era, June 1966, p. 477) President McKay

“No greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics, than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.” President David O. McKay

If we sit idly by, unmoved by the special knowledge which has been given, we are told our state will be awful. Latter-day Saints have been directed to give heed to the Lord’s commandments concerning the laws of the land. We have been told to support that law of the land which is constitutional and not tamper with it:

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land: and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”(D&C 98:6–7)

“Wherefore honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:9–10)

……. unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government… politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions. Heber J. Grant

Now, at the risk of offending, I submit to you that candidate Mitt Romney , even though he is LDS, is very much unacceptable. Please, compare his voting record, his speeches and positions to those of Congressman Ron Paul’s and remember this:

“We live in an age of deceit. .. Even within the Church we have been warned that ‘the ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood.’ (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR, April, 1949, p. 163.)”

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/higgins1.html