| Chapter 2: | Studying Presidential Electors |
|
|
During the 1796 election, one newspaper stated: “The President must not be merely the creature of a spirit of accommodation or intrigue among electors. The electors should be faithful agents of the people in this very important business” (Longley and Peirce 1999, 109). Accordingly, in the first campaign where pledges were secured, it was expected that those pledges would be honored. In effect, the rise of party prominence in the selection process rendered obsolete the original intent of elector independence. Since that time, electors have been expected to faithfully carry out the parties’ will, each casting ballots for his or her party’s ticket.
Examples abound detailing the seemingly ritualistic nature of the position. For instance, James Bryce (1995, 38) noted in his classic treatise, American Commonwealth, that “presidential electors have become a mere cog-wheel in the machine; a mere contrivance for giving effect to the decision of the people.” A more sardonic portrayal is offered by Justice Robert Jackson, who wrote in 1952 that
Such sentiment reflects the notion that electors are to be mere tabulators of the popular vote in each state. This conception of the office has dominated opinion about the position for over two hundred years, and therefore faithless electoral voting is strongly discouraged in contemporary elections.
In short, the original operation of the Electoral College has undergone significant changes throughout its history. This is especially apparent with respect to the office of presidential elector. The position has evolved into a ceremonial one: an elector is to carry out the will of the political party. To avoid any deviation in this practice, the position of elector has long been considered a reward conferred on the party faithful.