Madison's Views On Electoral Reform

Abstract

OMPLAINTS about the way the President of the United States is elected are an old story in American history. As early as 1823 -before the disputed election of 1824-25, in which John Quincy Adams won the majority of votes in the House of Representatives even though Andrew Jackson won the majority in the nationthere were cries for change. And one of the advocates of change was the Father of the Constitution himself, James Madison. He admitted that the impatience for adjournment and the resulting haste inevitable in any convention had resulted in an imperfect electoral system, and he suggested an amendment to improve it. Yet it was typical of Madison that he was far less extreme than most other critics of the electoral system. In fact, he spent as much effort in defending the electoral system provided in the Constitution as in seeking improvements upon it.While Madison admitted that the electoral system might well be improved, he still thought that it deserved credit rather than condemnation for the men which it had placed at the nation's head. He felt little alarm for the future when he considered the seven men whom he had seen elected President. They were all men of a national character and background. Only rarely, he thought, could a presidential election elevate a man who would discredit the office. And even that rare misfit would surely be turned out at the next election. He was certain that the elective system already at hand would be a sufficient safeguard against incompetence or viciousness in the White House.2 2 It was the departure from the electoral system provided in the Constitution which Madison criticized primarily. Therefore, his basic &dquo;reform&dquo; was a return to the constitutional system of elections which had been supplanted by the operations of political parties. For one thing, he urged that the presidential elector should become what he was originally intended to bea prominent statesman chosen by the people to decide for them who should be President. When an amendment was proposed which would have replaced the electors by a direct election, Madison declared that &dquo;there are advantages in the intervention of Electors, and inconveniences in a direct vote by the people&dquo; which the advocates of change were forgetting.The arguments which he cited in favor of the electoral system, however, are the very arguments which today are often cited against it. He contended that the candidates for electors would be personally known in the electoral districts, so the people would be better able to judge their merits than those of presidential candidates and thus they would turn out in greater numbers at elections. Today's critic of the electoral system would say, on the other hand, that the people are better able to judge the national figures whose opinions on major issues are a matter of public record than the unknowns who run as 1 Madison