The 'Corrupt Bargain'
In 1824, the electoral college votes were split between four candidates. Andrew Jackson received 99 votes, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41 and Henry Clay 37. Despite Andrew Jackson having the most electoral votes, he was not declared the winner because he needed 131 electoral votes. The decision was sent to the House of Representatives where Henry Clay was Speaker. Clay, who came in fourth place and hated Andrew Jackson now suddenly had immense power over who would become president. In what was called a 'Corrupt Bargain', Henry Clay worked very hard to get John Quincy Adams elected and perhaps in return was made Secretary of the State. John Quincy Adams would become president, but Jackson would be the ultimate victor in 1828 with a decisive win in both the electoral college and the popular vote.
Why Did Andrew Jackson Propose to Abolish the Electoral College?
In 1824, there really was no popular vote since most of the state legislatures appointed their electors, but by 1828 that changed when all but 2 states (Delaware and South Carolina) selected electors by a popular vote. As President, Andrew Jackson was still furious over what happened in 1824, and in his first State of the Union Address, he proposed to abolish the electoral college. Jackson laid out seven reasons why he believed the time was right to abolish the Electoral College.1. Andrew Jackson felt it was one of his "most urgent" duties to bring this to the attention of Congress.
"I consider it one of the most urgent of my duties to bring to your attention the propriety of amending that part of the Constitution which relates to the election of President and Vice-President. Our system of government was by its framers deemed an experiment, and they therefore consistently provided a mode of remedying its defects."
2. The "right of electing their Chief magistrate" belonged to the people. Andrew Jackson was a man of the people and stood in stark contrast to what he believed were the Aristocrats of the Northeast including John Quincy Adams. When our constitution was initially adopted, most states limited voting rights to property owners or tax payers including a limited number of free blacks. Starting in 1792, property qualifications for white males were steadily removed until in 1828 the vast majority of states allowed non-property-holding withe males to vote. In the western states of Kentucky this was met with much exhilaration but raised many concerns among those in the more so-called aristocratic societies of the Northeast. To Andrew Jackson, it was the 'will of the people' versus the aristocratic and established interests in both Democratic Republican and Federalist parties. Jackson saw first-hand how the choice of the people could be thwarted by the "intervention of the electoral colleges" or in some cases even the House of Representatives.
"To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate; it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or by the agency confided, under certain contingencies, to the House of Representatives."
3. The danger of the electoral college frustrating the wishes of the people is growing. The population in each state was rapidly growing, but the number of electors stayed the same. Jackson argued that as the proportion of agents to the population increased, then so did the danger of the public's "wishes being frustrated". Some electors might be unfaithful, and other might just err. In Jackson's mind the safest way to ensure that the will of the people was not defeated, was to allow them to "express their own will".
"Experience proves that in proportion as agents to execute the will of the people are multiplied there is danger of their wishes being frustrated. Some may be unfaithful; all are liable to err. So far, therefore, as the people can with convenience speak, it is safer for them to express their own will."
4. Too many candidates are diluting the votes making it too difficult to reach a majority. The election of 1824 was evidence that the electoral college was not setup to handle more than 2 or 3 candidates. If no one candidate reached a majority of the electoral votes, the decision was sent to the House of Representatives where there are many special interests. To make matters worse, each state received only one vote and often one individual who controlled the entire state. This made it very tempting for Representatives from smaller states to make deals for their vote. Thus it was easy for one individual from one state to make or break an election.
"The number of aspirants to the Presidency and the diversity of the interests which may influence their claims leave little reason to expect a choice in the first instance, and in that event the election must devolve on the House of Representatives, where it is obvious the will of the people may not be always ascertained, or, if ascertained, may not be regarded. From the mode of voting by States the choice is to be made by 24 votes, and it may often occur that one of these will be controlled by an individual Representative."
5. Repeated ballots in the House of Representatives invites corruption. Whomever becomes President has many honors and offices at his disposal. When there is no clear winner after the first ballot, it becomes very tempting for an individual member of the House to name the price for his vote. There is no doubt that Andrew Jackson was pointing his finger directly at Henry Clay.
"Honors and offices are at the disposal of the successful candidate. Repeated ballotings may make it apparent that a single individual holds the cast in his hand. May he not be tempted to name his reward?"
6. Even without corruption, a member of the House may misrepresent the will of their constituents. Some member may just be ignorant of the wishes of their constituents, others may just misunderstand the wishes of their constituent, and still others, might choose to put their own judgement ahead of their constituents. In Jackson's day, many members of Congress saw his candidacy as a danger to the country, and thus put their own judgement over the will of their constituents as what they might believe to be the patriotic thing to do.
"But even without corruption, supposing the probity of the Representative to be proof against the powerful motives by which it may be assailed, the will of the people is still constantly liable to be misrepresented. One may err from ignorance of the wishes of his constituents; another from a conviction that it is his duty to be governed by his own judgment of the fitness of the candidates;"
7. Without a majority vote, the President would not enjoy the confidence of the people. What happens when a candidate is elected by the electoral college or House of Representatives without winning the majority vote? Jackson that the President elect would still be constitutionally the President, but would not enjoy the confidence of the majority "necessary to the successful discharge of his duties".
"finally, although all were inflexibly honest, all accurately informed of the wishes of their constituents, yet under the present mode of election a minority may often elect a President, and when this happens it may reasonably be expected that efforts will be made on the part of the majority to rectify this injurious operation of their institutions. But although no evil of this character should result from such a perversion of the first principle of our system -- that the majority is to govern -- it must be very certain that a President elected by a minority can not enjoy the confidence necessary to the successful discharge of his duties."
What were the Details of Jackson's Proposal?
Jackson thus concluded, that for the good of public policy, we should remove anything that might impede the will of the people in electing our president. President Andrew Jackson in 1829 proposed to Congress to amend our system so "that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority."
"I would therefore recommend such an amendment of the Constitution as may remove all intermediate agency in the election of the President and Vice-President."
2. Maintain the relative weight of each state. President Jackson did not propose a strict national popular vote. Instead, Jackson proposed that the "mode may be so regulated as to preserve to each State its present relative weight in the election". In other words, Virginia would still hold 24 votes, and Delaware only 3. This means that the voter turnout in any one state would not increase its influence on the election. Perhaps, even more important in Jackson's day is that black slaves would still count toward the relative weight of each state, even though they did not have the right to vote.
"The mode may be so regulated as to preserve to each State its present relative weight in the election"
3. In case of a tie, allow the people to choose between the two candidates.
"and a failure in the first attempt may be provided for by confining the second to a choice between the two highest candidates. "
4. Limit the President to a single term of 4 or 6 years.
"In connection with such an amendment it would seem advisable to limit the service of the Chief Magistrate to a single term of either 4 or 6 years."
Jackson had one last request. If by chance Congress chooses not to adopt his amendment, then at least consider a provision to disqualify from running for office any Congressman or Senator that is appointed to a higher office by the president. In other words, make what John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay did illegal.
"If, however, it should not be adopted, it is worthy of consideration whether a provision disqualifying for office the Representatives in Congress on whom such an election may have devolved would not be proper."
My conclusion
Whether or not Andrew Jackson was just angry about the election of 1824 or serious about abolishing the electoral college, one thing is clear from his words. He did not propose a strict popular vote. His plan clearly maintained the relative proportion of each state. In recent years, candidates have lost the popular vote but won the electoral college giving rise to a popular campaign to move towards a national popular vote. While, some may point to Andrew Jackson as being a supporter, it is wrong to say that he supported a strict national popular vote. In Andrew Jackson's plan, large turnout in a densely populated area would not have any extra influence over the election, while smaller more rural states would maintain their relative weight no matter the turnout. Jackson's plan could be better described as system where electoral votes are bound to the popular vote of their state like what we have in many states today. The biggest difference between Jackson's model and our current system is that in Jackson's model, if no candidate won a majority of the states, the top two candidates would have a run-off. Today, our two-party system makes that a very unlikely event.The National Popular Vote
In many ways what Jackson was proposing is similar, yet slightly different than a plan today called the National Popular Vote. The National Popular Vote is a proposal that would not eliminate the electoral college, but make it nothing more than a formality without changing the constitution. In a National Popular Vote, the electoral college votes would be split proportionally and bound to the popular vote of each state. Because the electoral college votes are split proportionally, the differential between candidates in the small states would be almost negligible in the overall election. Jackson did not specify whether a state would have to split it's electoral votes proportionally, rather he suggested that states represent the majority of their people. I suspect, in hid plan each state would choose their own mechanisms. Overall, Jackson was very clear that the states would maintain their relative weight, something that had very specific and deep meaning in 1829. I am not trying to argue for or against the National Popular Vote, just trying to explain the differences. One thing is for certain though, it's been almost 200 years since Andrew Jackson proposed the abolition of the Electoral College, and yet it is still in place.1830 State of the Union Address
In 1830, Jackson returned to the Electoral College and repeated his request to Congress. His believed that the constitution needed to change had not changed, but seemed to have been hardened by what he called "observation of its evils and by the many able discussions which they have elicited on the floor of Congress". Jackson thus repeated his belief that the method of electing our President and Vice President via the electoral college was inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution."Among the objects of great national concern I can not omit to press again upon your attention that part of the Constitution which regulates the election of President and Vice-President. The necessity for its amendment is made so clear to my mind by observation of its evils and by the many able discussions which they have elicited on the floor of Congress and elsewhere that I should be wanting to my duty were I to withhold another expression of my deep solicitude on the subject. Our system fortunately contemplates a recurrence to first principles, differing in this respect from all that have preceded it, and securing it, I trust, equally against the decay and the commotions which have marked the progress of other governments.
Our fellow citizens, too, who in proportion to their love of liberty keep a steady eye upon the means of sustaining it, do not require to be reminded of the duty they owe to themselves to remedy all essential defects in so vital a part of their system. While they are sensible that every evil attendant upon its operation is not necessarily indicative of a bad organization, but may proceed from temporary causes, yet the habitual presence, or even a single instance, of evils which can be clearly traced to an organic defect will not, I trust, be over-looked through a too scrupulous veneration for the work of their ancestors.
The Constitution was an experiment committed to the virtue and intelligence of the great mass of our country-men, in whose ranks the framers of it themselves were to perform the part of patriotic observation and scrutiny, and if they have passed from the stage of existence with an increased confidence in its general adaptation to our condition we should learn from authority so high the duty of fortifying the points in it which time proves to be exposed rather than be deterred from approaching them by the suggestions of fear or the dictates of misplaced reverence.
A provision which does not secure to the people a direct choice of their Chief Magistrate, but has a tendency to defeat their will, presented to my mind such an inconsistence with the general spirit of our institutions that I was indeed to suggest for your consideration the substitute which appeared to me at the same time the most likely to correct the evil and to meet the views of our constituents. The most mature reflection since has added strength to the belief that the best interests of our country require the speedy adoption of some plan calculated to effect this end. A contingency which some times places it in the power of a single member of the House of Representatives to decide an election of so high and solemn a character is unjust to the people, and becomes when it occurs a source of embarrassment to the individuals thus brought into power and a cause of distrust of the representative body."
1830 State of the Union Address
By 1835, Congress had still not taken any action on Jackson's proposal, and he felt it was his duty to remind them remedy what he called "this organic defect" in our constitution.
"I felt it to be my duty in the first message which I communicated to Congress to urge upon its attention the propriety of amending that part of the Constitution which provides for the election of the President and the Vice-President of the United States. The leading object which I had in view was the adoption of some new provisions which would secure to the people the performance of this high duty without any intermediate agency. In my annual communications since I have enforced the same views, from a sincere conviction that the best interests of the country would be promoted by their adoption. If the subject were an ordinary one, I should have regarded the failure of Congress to act upon it as an indication of their judgment that the disadvantages which belong to the present system were not so great as those which would result from any attainable substitute that had been submitted to their consideration. Recollecting, however, that propositions to introduce a new feature in our fundamental laws can not be too patiently examined, and ought not to be received with favor until the great body of the people are thoroughly impressed with their necessity and value as a remedy for real evils, I feel that in renewing the recommendation I have heretofore made on this subject I am not transcending the bounds of a just deference to the sense of Congress or to the disposition of the people. However much we may differ in the choice of the measures which should guide the administration of the Government, there can be but little doubt in the minds of those who are really friendly to the republican features of our system that one of its most important securities consists in the separation of the legislative and executive powers at the same time that each is held responsible to the great source of authority, which is acknowledged to be supreme, in the will of the people constitutionally expressed. My reflection and experience satisfy me that the framers of the Constitution, although they were anxious to mark this feature as a settled and fixed principle in the structure of the Government, did not adopt all the precautions that were necessary to secure its practical observance, and that we can not be said to have carried into complete effect their intentions until the evils which arise from this organic defect are remedied.
Considering the great extent of our Confederacy, the rapid increase of its population, and the diversity of their interests and pursuits, it can not be disguised that the contingency by which one branch of the Legislature is to form itself into an electoral college can not become one of ordinary occurrence without producing incalculable mischief. What was intended as the medicine of the Constitution in extreme cases can not be frequently used without changing its character and sooner or later producing incurable disorder.
Every election by the House of Representatives is calculated to lessen the force of that security which is derived from the distinct and separate character of the legislative and executive functions, and while it exposes each to temptations adverse to their efficiency as organs of the Constitution and laws, its tendency will be to unite both in resisting the will of the people, and thus give a direction to the Government antirepublican and dangerous. All history tells us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power, and should never acquiesce in a practice which will diminish their control over it. This obligation, so universal in its application to all the principles of a republic, is peculiarly so in ours, where the formation of parties founded on sectional interests is so much fostered by the extent of our territory. These interests, represented by candidates for the Presidency, are constantly prone, in the zeal of party and selfish objects, to generate influences unmindful of the general good and forgetful of the restraints which the great body of the people would enforce if they were in no contingency to lose the right of expressing their will. The experience of our country from the formation of the Government to the present day demonstrates that the people can not too soon adopt some stronger safeguard for their right to elect the highest officers known to the Constitution than is contained in that sacred instrument as it now stands."
References
Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Andrew Jackson: First Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29471 [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
Wagner, D. (2018). 1830 Andrew Jackson - Electing the Chief Magistrate. [online] Stateoftheunionhistory.com. Available at: http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2015/07/1830-andrew-jackson-electing-chief.html [Accessed 13 Sep. 2018].
Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Andrew Jackson: Seventh Annual Message. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/seventh-annual-message-2 [Accessed 15 Feb. 2021].
No comments:
Post a Comment