Constitution Corner – The 17th Amendment Should Be Repealed

Open as PDF

Note: On “We the People – The Constitution Matters” for 6 January we discussed repeal of the 17th Amendment with our guest, Andrew Langer, President of Institute for Liberty.[1]  There just wasn’t sufficient time to cover all the nuances of that issue; hence this essay.

On December 5, 1933, the necessary 36th state (Utah) ratified the 21st Amendment, bringing to an end 13 years of national prohibition and proving beyond doubt that Americans are able to detect and correct errors they have made in their Constitutional order.  If only we were so observant today.

It had not taken long for Americans to realize the folly of trying to modify human behavior by Constitutional amendment; prohibition laws were openly flaunted and juries often refused to convict those accused of violating the law — Americans were determined to drink alcohol.

The 18th Amendment, which created prohibition, had been ratified in 1919 only six years after the 17th Amendment was added to the Constitution; and the 17th came only two months after the 16th.  America had gone nearly 40 years since the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was added and suddenly we were amending with great frequency.

The 17th Amendment, which changed Senators from being appointed to the Senate by their state legislatures to being elected instead by the citizens of the state, was seen by some as anticlimactic; many states had already begun allowing their citizens to elect their Senators, if not directly, at least through a non-binding primary election.  For these people, the amendment only confirmed a fait accompli.

Yet the effort to change the appointment of Senators actually goes back to at least 1826, when New York Representative Henry Storrs first proposed an amendment to provide for popular election. Similar amendments were introduced in 1829, 1855 and 1868.

By the 1890s, support for the introduction of direct election for the Senate began to accelerate, primarily due to the efforts of the Populist Party, which added direct election of Senators to its party platform.  In 1908, Oregon became the first state to base its selection of Senators on a popular vote.  Nebraska soon followed.

William Randolph Hearst threw his weight behind the movement for direct election by publishing a series of articles in his 1906 Cosmopolitan Magazine, attacking “The Treason of the Senate.” “Muckraking” journalists described Rhode Island Senator Nelson Aldrich as the principal “traitor” among the “scurvy lot,” who controlled the Senate through “theft, perjury, and bribes which corrupted the vote in the legislature to gain their election.”

Gradually, more state legislatures began to petition the Congress for direct election of Senators. The House soon had the two-thirds vote necessary to pass just such an amendment; when the joint resolution reached the Senate, however, it failed year after year.  By 1910, 31 state legislatures had petitioned Congress to pass and send the amendment for ratification, while 28 of them applied to Congress for an Article V convention for drafting such an amendment.  This was only three applications short of the threshold that would have required Congress to convene such a convention.  That same year, ten Republican Senators who were opposed to the change were “unelected,” sending a further “wake-up call to the Senate.”  Two years later the Senate finally passed the joint resolution and the proposed amendment was sent to the states for ratification.

The amendment reads: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures…”  The amendment concludes by specifying how vacancies in a Senate seat will be filled.

The framers of the Constitution could have specified election by the people.  In the Convention, James Wilson of Pennsylvania had been the sole advocate for popularly electing Senators; but his proposal to do so was soundly defeated, 10–1.  The Virginia Plan proposed the Senate be elected by the members of the “lower House.” So why did the Framers of the Constitution choose appointment by the state legislatures instead?

Perhaps the reason can be summed up by a familiar Madisonian statement: “Power lodged as it must be in human hands, will forever be liable to abuse.”  In other words: “Checks and balances” were needed.  The people would exert their political power in the House of Representatives, the states would exert theirs in the Senate, and the two bodies would provide a check on each other to prevent excesses.  The interests of the people in the House would be, must be, balanced by the interests of the state governments in the Senate.

Madison confirmed in Federalist #45: “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures.”

In Federalist #63, Madison discussed the importance of the role of a Senate elected by state legislatures rather than the people:

“To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution [a Senate elected by the state legislatures] may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. … so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.”

“In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”(emphasis added)

If the Senate could provide a check against the people, it could also provide a check against the Executive, particularly given its unique role in confirming executive appointments and ratifying treaties; especially if the state governments were able to instruct their Senators.

So what has been the result of direct election of Senators?

Here’s where the argument for repeal falters a bit; it is always difficult to state with certainty what would have happened in any situation, “if only.”  But it is not too hard to see some of the effects:

For starters, the states are well on their way to being considered mere administrative units of the national government.  As former Senator Tom Coburn explains in this interview,[2] the federal government has grown to the point where it dominates the states.  As Mr. Langer pointed out on our radio interview, the vast majority of this growth took place after the 17th Amendment was ratified.  We might rightfully ask: would this growth have taken place if the states still controlled the Senate?

State governments rightfully claim responsibility over matters of taxation, education, employment, disaster relief, public safety, transportation, health care, marriage, and property rights, to name just a few.  Yet in all those issues, and many more, the federal government mandates, regulates, or directs policy, and the states are usually forced to obey.  Although state governments bear much of the responsibility for their citizens, they enjoy greatly reduced authority to do anything about the issues they face.  A reinvigoration of state power[3] is long overdue.

A third effect of popular election of Senators was that states, especially those which did not ratify the 17th, lost the “equal suffrage” in the Senate guaranteed by Article 5.  Senators now represent the people who elected them, and the states no longer have a controlling vote in the Senate; they have arguably lost their suffrage.  “But there remain two Senators for every state, every state is therefore equally represented,” comes the refrain.  Because Senators can no longer be recalled by the state legislatures, they no longer must vote as a state delegation, they now “vote their conscience.”  This leads to a hundred individual votes in the Senate instead of what used to be, in essence, one vote per state.  One could argue (and, no doubt, some will) that Senators could always “vote their conscience,” and this must be conceded; but the “persuasiveness” attendant to instructing Senators how their state government views an upcoming measure cannot be dismissed.  Because the dominant party in the state legislature would likely have appointed Senators from that party, Senators would normally share the party’s political philosophy and could be expected to vote alike on most issues.  Today there is even the potential for the two Senators to come from different parties.  Thirteen states in our last Congress, in fact, had Senators from opposing parties.  On strongly partisan issues, their votes could be expected to nullify each other.

Virginia M. McInerney has posted on the LONANG[4] website a well-reasoned article[5] explaining why the 17th should be repealed.  It is worth the read.  She points out: “The national government, having taken on too much power, is unable to properly administer all the areas it has arrogated unto itself. On the other hand, the state governments are impotent in legislating and executing the will of the people because they are subject to unpredictable subjugation by the national government.”

But repeal of the 17th Amendment face several challenges.[6]  The American people have become accustomed to electing “their” Senators, and few Americans today understand or could explain the reasoning behind the original design.

The next challenge is found in the mechanism of repeal.  According to Article V there are two ways to amend the Constitution: Congress can propose the necessary amendment, as they did with the 17th, or the states can petition for an Article V convention to do so.  The first method is problematic; it is almost certain that a repeal amendment will ever gain the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate; today’s Senators have become accustomed to the corporate donations to their re-election campaigns.  This money would dry up overnight once Senators were once again appointed by their states.  That leaves an Article V convention as the only mechanism with any chance of success.  Due to a perceived risk of untoward results, the Article V Convention method is being fought tooth and nail, most vehemently by conservatives themselves.

In Feb 2016, the Utah Senate passed a resolution[7] calling on their Congressional delegation to push for repeal of 17th Amendment.  I’ve not discovered if this actually happened; if it did, no one took much notice.  Georgia Senator Zell Miller[8] famously tried every year he was in the Senate to pass a repeal measure through that chamber, each time unsuccessfully.

Some, however, urge caution.  David Gordon, writing on Mises.org points out that Repealing the 17th Amendment Won’t Fix the Senate.[9]  Merely repealing the 17th might only place the issue back in the hands of the state legislatures where some could continue to let their citizens elect Senators if they so choose.  “A fundamental problem of the Senate has long been the fact that Senators do not vote as representatives of a state delegation, but as independent legislators.  The status quo should be abandoned in favor of allowing each state delegation only a single vote in the Senate, and that vote should be interpreted as the member state’s position.”  Such a change: one vote per state, could be included in a repeal amendment.  Unless a repeal amendment also gave the state legislatures specific power to recall the Senators, there would be no incentive for Senators to follow their state’s instructions.  The repeal amendment should also address the issue of long-vacant seats, which was an occasional problem prior to the 17th when state legislatures could not agree on who should represent them.

Many on the Left will also fight the idea.  Some worry that repealing the 17th will lead to much stronger republican control of the Senate.  With 68 percent of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the U.S. now controlled by Republicans,[10] it seems likely they are right — at the moment.  But remember, only a third of Senators are elected each two years; the composition of Republican vs Democrat control of state legislatures could change dramatically over the next six years.

If you would like to register your opinion on this matter, go to debate.org,[11] where you’ll find an online anonymous poll.  When I registered my vote, 60% of respondents had said “Yes” to repeal, while 40% had said “No.”

In conclusion, just as the American people recognized their error in enacting prohibition, and correcting that error, they will, hopefully, one day realize their error in disrupting the Framers’ plan for a balance of power in the Congress – and repeal the 17th Amendment.  If you agree the 17th should be repealed, if you would like to restore true federalism,[12] speak with your state legislators.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] http://www.instituteforliberty.org/

[2] http://www.conventionofstates.com/tom_coburn_the_federal

[3] http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/a/The-Conservative-Case-For-Returning-Government-Power-To-The-States.htm

[4] Laws of Nature and Nature’s God Institute

[5] http://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/federalism/repeal-seventeenth-amendment/

[6] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/05/repealing-the-17th-amendment-would-be-no-small-task/

[7] http://www.standard.net/Government/2016/02/24/Utah-Senate-passes-resolution-to-repeal-17th-Amendment-in-states-rights-push

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller

[9] https://mises.org/blog/repealing-17th-amendment-wont-fix-Senate

[10] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/after-winning-7-more-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all

[11] http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-u-s-repeal-the-17th-amendment

[12] http://www.restorefederalism.org/

Constitutional Corner – Restoring the Electoral College

Open as PDF

The 2000 presidential election put the Electoral College squarely in the gunsights of the Left; how could a candidate (Al Gore) get 500,000 more popular votes and not attain the Executive Office? This just won’t do, time to get rid of the Electoral College once and for all!

In 2004, the New York Times editorial staff called the Electoral College “a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority.”[1]

Just a year ago, University of Maryland sophomore Tyler Lewis attempted to make the case once again.[2]

Yet the Electoral College survives, barely, in form if not in function. Actually, it’s on life-support.

Understanding the difficulty of amending the Constitution to replace the Framers’ preferred election process, the National Popular Vote project is attempting to use state-level legislation to change the way Electors cast their ballots. Thanks to a growing love affair with “democracy” (however ill-understood), they are making great progress in the state legislatures. Their National Popular Vote bills will ensure whichever candidate secures the greatest number of votes nationally will also obtain all of that state’s electoral votes. Bingo; problem solved, without Constitutional amendment; all perfectly legal. The Electoral College’s days are truly numbered, despite being the preferred method of electing the President in a 2002 poll of political scientists.[3]

More than 700 proposals for changing the Electoral College system have been introduced over the years in Congress — some even received committee hearings — but none received the requisite 2/3 vote in both Houses in order to be sent to the states for ratification. In 1956 and again in 1969 proposed amendments passed the House but died in the Senate. The last time any changes were made constitutionally to the Electoral College was in 1804 (with the 12th Amendment).[4]

Although various schemes to select the Chief Executive were debated throughout the summer of 1787, what we now know as the Electoral College was not added to the draft Constitution until 4 September, 1787, two weeks before adjournment. The final plan was mostly the brainchild of the Committee on Detail. The initial proposal for the Executive (in the Virginia Plan) had the President appointed by the Legislature. But this was rejected because it might render the President too dependent on Congress. How about direct election by the people? During debate on this question, several delegates expressed concern over the ability of the general electorate (i.e., the people) to identify “worthy” presidential candidates. One need only canvass this season’s Presidential hopefuls, and the excitement some generate, to see that the American people have lost complete sight of what qualities a Chief Executive should have. Seriously, are there no Washingtons, Adams, Jeffersons, or Madisons to call upon today?

Add to this paucity of statesmanship and decorum in the candidates, the fact that only a third of today’s voters are able to name the three branches of government; America is in deep trouble. But I digress.

Here’s how the Electoral College was intended to work (and worked well for all of two elections): Electors equal to a state’s combined total of Representatives and Senators were selected through a process devised by each state. They could be elected by the citizens of the state or appointed by the state legislature or some combination of process. Qualifications of the Electors were to be the same as Electors of the “most populous house” of the state legislature (i.e., anyone allowed to vote for their state assemblyman could qualify as an Elector), but to render them totally independent, they also could not be a U.S. Senator or Representative, or hold any “Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.”

On a given day the Electors would meet, in their states (“safe from interference from Congress and national cabals”), and each Elector would nominate two individuals to the office of president, one of whom had to reside in another state than the Elector himself. Each nomination represented a vote for that person. The nominations were recorded and sent to the U.S. Senate. The President of the Senate (i.e., the Vice-President of the U.S.) opened the ballots from each state, tallied the nominations/votes for each nominee, and declared the person with the most votes, provided a majority of the Electors had voted for him, to be the President. Whoever received the second-most votes became the Vice-President. The Electors never met in a “college,”[5] instead they met in 13 state “colleges.” The design of the Electoral College system made it clear that “the President was to be, like the Senate, a creature of the states and not of Congress”[6] (or, I might add, the people).

As Hamilton explains in Federalist 68, the process was meant to ensure “that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption.”[7]

As I said, this worked well for two elections. Once Washington decided against a third term, flaws in the design soon became evident. In the election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson received the most and second-most votes respectively (Adams received one vote more than needed for a majority) and thus became the President and Vice-President. Problem: by that time political parties had arisen and Adams and Jefferson were affiliated with different parties, leading Adams to essentially ignore his Vice-President (as he himself had been largely ignored by Washington, for different reasons), which lead Jefferson to conclude he was wasting his time in Washington and that tending to his vines at Monticello would be more productive.

The election of 1800 revealed yet another flaw, this time it could not be ignored: since Electors nominated/voted for two people, if all the Electors of one political party voted for the same two people, those two people would end up with the same number of votes. A tie in the most number of votes threw the election into the House of Representatives. To settle the tie, the House delegations would choose the President from one of the top five nominees, voting by state. A majority of the state votes would settle the matter, unless no candidate obtained a majority of the state votes, which was precisely what happened.

A flaw in the execution of the plan of the Democrat-Republican Electors to seat Jefferson as President and running mate Aaron Burr as Vice-President resulted in a tie vote for both, a tie vote the lame-duck Federalists in the House of Representatives saw no reason to resolve. Thirty-five ballots later, the recalcitrant Federalists would still not budge and neither candidate had received the nine state votes needed. Alexander Hamilton was finally able to work a deal that broke the tie in Jefferson’s favor, much to Aaron Burr’s chagrin. The animosity this produced was at least partly responsible for Burr and Hamilton’s later “interview” on the Heights of Weehawken, which resulted in Hamilton’s untimely death.

The 12th Amendment reduced the likelihood of a tie by requiring Electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice-President. Despite the high theater created by the 1800 election, the idea behind the 12th Amendment was still very contentious and did not gain sufficient political support until the imminent election of 1804 provided sufficient to push it through Congress and out to the states for ratification.

Today, however, the operation of the Electoral College little resembles the original. Instead of Electors nominating candidates from a potential pool of 213 million persons,[8] as they would following the original design, political parties nominate candidates through primary elections and a convention. Even though the name of the party’s candidate appears on the ballot, citizens are in fact voting for Electors who have previously committed themselves to a particular candidate. The original action of Electors as “screeners and selectors” of Presidential candidates has been obliterated.

About the only thing retained from the original design is that a successful candidate must receive a majority (270) of the total electoral votes available (538).[9] Due to the fact that a candidate need generally only win 50.1% of the popular vote in a state to receive that state’s electoral votes, it is possible for a candidate to receive the most popular votes nationally[10] and still win insufficient electoral votes to gain the office. Indeed this is what happened in 2000.

In the 2000 election, Bush/Cheney received 50,456,002 popular votes (47.9% of the total), but carried a majority of votes in 30 states and thus received their combined 271 electoral votes (notice, only one more electoral vote than needed). The Gore/Liebermann ticket received 50,999,897 popular votes (48.4% of the total)[11] but only carried 20 states (+ District of Columbia) and were awarded only 266 electoral votes. Gore’s large vote margins in New York (1,704,323), California (1,293,774) and Illinois (569,605) contributed greatly to his popular vote victory, but were meaningless in the electoral vote count.

The lesson of this election was that you only needed to win 50.1% of the popular vote in any state, any more than that has no effect on the electoral vote count (wasted?).

In Florida, a 537 vote margin for Bush gave him the Presidency! Ralph Nadar took 97,488 Floridians’ votes, presumably away from Gore; Pat Bucahnan took 17,484 votes (presumably) from Bush, and Libertarian Harry Browne garnered 16,415 votes, which either major party would have loved to have. Even the 1,371 votes of Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips or the 2,281 votes cast for Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin would have been enough to change the outcome in the state and thus nationally; so would have the 3,028 votes cast for write-ins. Who says one vote (or even 537 votes) isn’t important? After the election, the Supreme Court stopped the dubiously legal recount of Florida votes and the rest, as they say, is history. The Left is yet to recover, leading to the “National Popular Vote” movement, discussed earlier.

So why not chuck the Electoral College and elect the President solely through a popular vote?

First and foremost, the Framers saw the office of President far differently than we do today. Today the President is “the leader of the free world,” the “Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world.”[12] In addition, Presidents in the modern era have worked hard to create the “Imperial Presidency” (the subject of next week’s essay, so I won’t dwell on it here).

In 1789 however, one did not “run” for the Presidency, one was pushed into it, sometimes reluctantly. Anyone actively seeking the office would have been viewed with suspicion. George Washington has often been called “The Reluctant President,”[13] as has John Quincy Adams.[14] Some are calling Barack Obama such,[15] but they focus very narrowly on his foreign and wartime policy. Obama showed no reluctance in setting about to “fundamentally transform America.”

The Framers saw a very limited role for the President: faithfully executing the laws, negotiating treaties, and protecting the nation from attack. When you read Article 2, that’s about all you encounter, save some administrative responsibilities. Thus, candidates for the office were expected to be good administrators as well as proven statesmen,[16] but they were not expected to be flamboyant or self-aggrandizing. People with such qualities would have been ignored by the Electors.

Make no mistake, the movement to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote is not just a move to replace an archaic or overly complicated methodology, it is not an attempt to replace a system that is today not operating in harmony with its original intent, this movement is part and parcel of a scheme to replace our constitutional republic with a pure democracy.

But could we still go back to the original Electoral College process (or something close to it)?

Imagine this: On Election Day, Electors are selected, by name, in a popular vote of the people. The Electors were nominated by their state legislatures for their life experience, maturity, and sound judgement. The ballot contains only a brief resume of each person to guide the people’s votes, but no party affiliation is shown.

A day after the election, the results of the voting are announced (at this point the Electors would be advised to disconnect their home phones, for their sanity). On a prescribed day in December, Virginia’s 13 Electors meet in Richmond (as other state’s Electors meet in their state capitols) and each Elector writes down the names of two men or women they think are qualified to hold the high offices of President and Vice-President of the United States, respectively — “statesmen who had proven themselves through service and dedication to their communities, states, and country.”[17] The guidance from the Bible is similar: “But select capable men from all the people–men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain…”

Political parties would have been allowed to nominate preferred candidates if they wished, but the Electors would have no pressure or commitment to choose any party’s nominee. The names the Elector’s nominees will eventually become public, so each Elector would be prepared to explain/defend their choices. Electors not taking their responsibility seriously would expect to face the wrath of the community upon their return from nominating.

The Electors’ nominations are forwarded to the U.S. Senate, which opens them on a designated day a few days later. The nominations for each office are tallied and, in the unlikely event that a single nominee obtains votes from a majority of the Electors, they automatically become the President or Vice-President, providing they are found to meet the qualifications found in Article 2 of the Constitution. A more likely outcome is that no person achieves a majority of the Electors’ votes for their office. In this case, the House of Representatives immediately convenes and, from the three individuals[18] receiving the highest number of votes for President, chooses the President, voting by states, one vote per state.  The Senate does likewise for the Vice-President.

We could re-instill this process in short order, without Constitutional amendment. In many states, legislation governing how Electors are required to vote would have to be modified.

Notice that the people are still involved, in two significant ways: by voting for the Electors, as well as selecting their Representatives and Senators (unless we also repeal the 17th Amendment) who will likely cast the deciding votes for President and Vice-President respectively. The states are involved by selecting the potential Electors and, through their Congressional delegations, in actually selecting the President and Vice-President. The Electors themselves are under great public scrutiny for nominating individuals of integrity and experience.

The influence of political parties over at least the two highest offices in the land would be broken; such influence would remain in races for the Senate and House; presidential debates would be unnecessary, presidential elections would cost a few thousand dollars (the expense of bringing the Electors to the capitol) instead of millions; robocalls (for President at least) would cease; Presidential candidate “promises” would be a thing of the past – the only promise would be made during the swearing in: to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Political parties could continue to hold primaries and/or conventions if they wished, but the importance of these would be greatly diminished, there would be no assurance that their candidate would be even considered by the Electors. Of course, the individuals voted into office by the House and Senate, once notified, would retain the right to decline to serve. Doing so would move the selection to the candidate receiving the next highest state votes in each Chamber.

The President and Vice-President would be watched carefully by the public to see that they are honestly working together for the good of the nation, or they would be impeached and replaced in accordance with the rules of the Constitution. Impeachment for mal-administration would become a real constitutional remedy again, no longer suppressed by partisanship. The Executive “team” would have to work together to achieve consensus and gain the support of Congress.

Aren’t you tired of the endless “low theater” that characterizes presidential campaigns and debates today? Aren’t you tired of Presidents breaking their campaign promises? Aren’t you tired of the bitter partisan fights between the Executive and Congress? Aren’t you tired of the billions spent on electing the President? Aren’t you tired of the robocalls? I am.

It’s time we returned to the original Electoral College.

We will be discussing this topic on “We the People, The Constitution Matters” on WFYL radio Friday morning, 12 March, 7-8am. You can “Listen Live” at www.1180wfyl.com, or, if you are fortunate enough to live in the station’s broadcast area, on the radio as you drive to work that morning.

You can later download the podcast of the show and listen at your leisure, or you can listen to one of the rebroadcasts during the weekend. I would love to hear your ideas on this topic. Hope you’ll join us.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] “Making Votes Count: Abolish the Electoral College,” August 29, 2004.

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-lewis/why-we-should-abolish-the_1_b_8961256.html

[3] Paul D. Schumaker and Burdett A. Loomis, “Choosing A President,” 2002, Chatham House Publishers, p. 176.

[4] Ibid, p. 2.

[5] Derived from the Latin: collegium, meaning an association or guild.

[6] Ibid, p. 39.

[7] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 68, March 14, 1788.

[8] The voting age population of 2012, minus the 535 members of Congress and the approximately 2.2 million federal employees..

[9] Maine and Nebraska allow electoral votes to be split between parties based on district voting. In both states, two electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the statewide race and one electoral vote is awarded to the winner of each congressional district. Maine has only two congressional districts while Nebraska has three, thus neither state makes a meaningful contribution to the total. In 2000, Gore took all of Maine’s electoral votes and Bush took all of Nebraska’s.

[10] Until 1828 a national vote was not even tallied since some states still allowed the state legislature to select the Electors.

[11] Note that neither team received a majority of the popular votes cast, Gore only obtained a plurality.

[12] Despite these glowing accolades, Forbes magazine named Barack Obama as only the third most powerful person in the world in 2015, behind Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel. See http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/

[13] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/george-washington-the-reluctant-president-49492/

[14] http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/book-reviews/reluctant-president

[15] See: http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/beyond-the-rhetoric/2546-the-reluctant-president

[16] As opposed to first-term Senators.

[17] Gary & Carolyn Alder, “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College” 2011, GCA Ventures, LLC. p. 6.

[18] Reduced from five to three by the 12th Amendment.