By Mike Asmus
Mr. & Mrs. Smith Dont (Really) Vote for President and Were Almost Blocked from Voting for Representatives
Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN Texas With Texas House & Senate committees poised to dig into the decennial project of legislative redistricting its interesting to think how things might be if state legislatures also had the power to choose who to send to the U.S. House & Senate. Turns out some of this interesting thinking is actually well-documented historical experience as statehouses did choose some federal lawmakers and statehouse CEOs almost earned the power to select the president.
Late May Philadelphia 1787. Spring is in the humid Pennsylvania air and a quorum of our constitutional convention delegates are finally assembled and seated in their uncomfy chairs. Charged with improving the nation-endangering Articles of Confederation delegates quickly filed that untidy mess in the circular file and set about starting anew as framers of a constitution. This would be big work; any thoughts of a few weeks and done were soon done in.
The Framers (well cast the authors and signers of the Declaration as the Founders) quickly agreed on establishing a three-branch government. The legislative branch would be a bi-cameral or two house national (later amended to United States) legislature.
The Senate would be a body of the states with each getting equal representation; and the House would be a body of the people with the size of each states representative delegation (more or less) proportional to the respective state populations. So far no big surprises in looking back then to where we are today.
In fact to this point the proposed and enacted governmental structures are one in the same. On to the next somewhat more surprising point.
The Constitution made no mention whatsoever of individual House districts leading some states to choose their representative delegations at large through statewide elections. In these cases multiple representatives were each representing the entire state although certainly different representatives had differing personal interests in different parts of the state.
This situation would be like it is with each states two senators who are elected by and represent an entire state. (Many small population states then and now have only one representative who of course would be elected by a statewide vote.)
Congress first called on states having multi-member representation to employ single-member districts in 1842 but some states continued marching to a different drummer. Only through a series of court rulings in the 1960s did the concept of congressional districts become a fully formed definition with the requirements that districts would:
- Be represented only by one person
- Be shaped as compactly as possible
- Be made up of contiguous land and
- Have the same number of inhabitants as all other districts within a same state.
Clearly districts as we know them today underwent a long gestation period that began only well after the Framers lent their signatures to the document that would supersede the not-so-super Articles of Confederation. A related aspect that
was born during the constitutional convention was the manner in which representatives would be chosen or more specifically who would be doing the choosing.
Delegates had agreed within the first week of the convention to have the people of the states choose their congressional representatives leaving it to the state legislatures to determine voter qualifications and the manner in which elections would be held. However just about a week after having reached that consensus South Carolinas Charles Pinckney asked his colleagues to take another look moving that the first branch of the national Legislature be elected by the State Legislatures and not by the people.
A strong supporter of a strong centralized government the young lawyer bolstered his idea by asserting the people of the states were not as qualified as state lawmakers to choose U.S. representatives and also suggested state legislatures would more likely help promote the enactment of the soon-to-come national government if they had direct say in choosing U.S. representatives. Hard to imagine the constituent email Mr. Pinckney would have gotten in response to his first point and his second thought seems to hover between naivety and wishful thinking.
It is generally agreed that delegate Pinckney made many valuable contributions to the convention and the conventions four pages of parchment. This idea of his torpedoed 8 against to 3 for was not one of them.
Of course today its with a wan smile and slight shake of the head that we dismiss Charles Pinckneys idea as whimsical poppycock and we thank cooler or warmer heads for putting the power of choosing U.S. representatives in the hands of those being represented. But were this anytime between 1787 and 1913 we would then next think: Isnt it plenty enough already that United States senators are chosen not by the people but by state legislatures?
Thats right state legislatures chose U.S. senators until ratification of the 17th Amendment which put this election power in the hands of voters like you and me.
Thoughts among the Framers ran the spectrum with respect to how much or how little voting power to put directly in the hands of individual voters but a majority of these thinkers found themselves closer to the centralized consolidation side than the nationwide distribution end. Without question none wanted to establish any form of governance that could lead to any semblance of the tyrannical rule they had freed themselves from just years earlier.
Many convention attendees had fought in the Revolution and all had helped advance the cause for liberty from England. Enacting the co-equal checks-and-balances three-branch system of government alone ensured that no one person would run the country as monarch dictator or despot. But the matter of on whom to confer the power of suffrage and to what degree proved more complicated and not entirely satisfactory.
With respect to the who and with all of the those were the times factors being considered and accepted or rejected women would not be voting for quite some time. Nor would people of color who at the time faced the denial of even greater freedoms. In fact non-wealthy whites would not be casting ballots for quite some time either.
Astonishingly you could mark 1971s ratification of the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to the militarys minimum inductee age of 18 as the not-too-long-ago mark when suffrage was completely conferred on Americas people.
And on the question of voting degree clearly the Framers were largely wary of entrusting individuals with too much decision-making power. This is borne out in their final draft. Yes people vote for their federal representatives. But were not yet 100 years into the perk of being able to choose our U.S. Senators. And we dont directly elect the president. (Just where is the campus of the electoral college?) In fact had one constitutional convention delegate won over a majority of his colleagues in 1787 Rick Perry would be among just 50 people choosing the nations chief executive and commander-in-chief in 2012.
Debate on how to select the president (national executive in the early days of the convention) featured a number of scenarios including direct election by the people to a slightly choppier version of the still-clunky electoral college system that we know and love today. One scenario had Congress choosing the president. This frightful prospect inspired delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts to offer up his own not-much-less-frightful plan: Have the states governors choose the president.
In making his case Mr. Gerry whose name would later be immortalized in the crown jewel of redistricting lingo gerrymandering noted his plan would take the power out of Congress and that it would also follow along with the convention-deliberated processes of having senators chosen by state legislatures and representatives chosen by the people. Nice points made little enthusiasm generated. Gerrys colleagues firmly spiked his idea in a 10-1 vote.
In looking at what ultimately prevailed for choosing the president from the convention one could say the electoral college is the product of a collective body eschewing direct election of the chief executive but even more strongly repelling the idea of members of Congress or an assembly of state governors choosing. Like so many facets found in the various Constitutional articles electing a president by way of a virtual college is not perfect but lots better than having a king. The very fact that the document features a president is a profound accomplishment in fostering a republican form of democracy.
Like all work product created by committee we see where debate on the various workings of the Constitution could and did travel full circle with some aspects in fact making several revolutions. And without a definitive meeting deadline conventioneers faced a haunting variant of the adage the job expands to fill the time allotted: The job never ends because we have no deadline.
And so it is that the workings of the Constitution and all its attendant specifics and vagaries relate to some degree as much to logistics and semantics as personal and political ideologies.
Youll note the vote tally on Mr. Gerrys amendment coming up to 11. Yet werent there 13 stars on U.S. Flag version 1.0? Of course there were. And so it was the Confederation Congress charged each of the 13 states united with sending delegates to the constitutional convention.
But these were pre-light rail days. Convened on May 14 it wasnt until the 25th of May that enough delegates had arrived to establish a quorum to officially conduct business. The New Hampshire delegation nonplussed to find their flinty home state unwilling to pay travel expenses arrived at the convention on July 23.
Spunky defiant Rhode Island an island in so many many ways except the literal determinedly chose and sent precisely zero delegates. Having been enlisted to serve on the pretext that they would be making a series of fine tunings to the Articles of Confederation the delegates soon harnessed themselves to the far more Herculean task of starting over from Square One.
The convention starting late then stretching to and then through the summer many delegates fled Philly before the work at hand was completed. Things were very much in a lets wrap this thing up mode byand long beforethe conventions September 17 conclusion.
And here we are several Septembers later with Mr. and Mrs. Smith choosing their representatives and senators and more or less choosing their president. Created by group think yet by a group of very good thinkers the Constitution is the Magna Carta of the United States and a model for the worlds nations.
A former mayor & State Senate Communications Director Mike Asmus managed the 2010 congressional campaign of Donna Campbell who remains in the hunt for 2012.
