A Better Way to Choose a President:
More Office-Holder Delegates

What Percentage of each National Convention
Should be Super-Delegates?


SYNOPSIS:

   
Mere popularity is not a good way to select the President of the USA.
The political parties can select better nominees
by giving party-members who have experience in government
more influence in nominating their next candidate for President.

OUTLINE:


1. WHO IS THIS COLLEGE OF ELECTORS?

2. MODIFICATIONS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

3. A DIRECT POPULAR VOTE OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE.

4. NATIONAL POLITICAL CONVENTIONS TO SELECT CANDIDATES.

5. SHOULD OFFICE-HOLDERS HAVE A GREATER ROLE
            IN SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT?

6. COMPETENCE IS BETTER THAN POPULARITY.

RESULT:

    Can popularity be replaced by competence?
Being able to collect lots of votes
does not guarantee that one can run a large country.

    Instead of selecting all delegates in the election year,
up to half of the delegates to national conventions
could be elected office-holders who know how government works.




A Better Was to Choose a President:
More Office-Holder Delegates
What Percentage of each National Convention
Should be Super-Delegates?



by James Leonard Park

1. WHO IS THIS COLLEGE OF ELECTORS?

    Over 200 years ago, the 'founding fathers' of our new country
created a Constitution giving an Electoral College the responsibility
for selecting each new President and Vice President of the United States.

    The Electoral College aimed to avoid the popular election of the President.
They feared that some candidate might be very popular with the people
even if he lacked the experience needed for running a country.

    Parliamentary systems for choosing 'prime ministers' did exist.
But the founding fathers did not give us that system either.
A parliamentary system gives the power to select the head of government
to the elected representatives of the people.
They would select the best person from their own membership
to be the chief executive of the nation.

    Instead the writers of our Constitution created a brand-new system
for selecting the President and Vice President of the United States
a novel procedure never seen before.

    Long before women could vote or hold office,
several men were appointed to go to the state capitals
for the purpose of electing the next President and Vice President.

    These Electors were not originally selected by political parties.
Rather, they were chosen by the legislators of each state.
(And these legislators were assumed to have
some first-hand experience with how government works.)
Because the states had different sizes of land and population,
each state was authorized to appoint a number of Electors
equal to the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives
and U.S. Senators from that state.

    The people of the United States did not vote for President and VP.
There was no Presidential election at all.
Rather, the appointed Electors chose the next President and VP.

    These wise men would discuss the possible candidates
and then vote to elect the next President and Vice President of the USA.
If the College of Electors could not agree,
the power to elect the President went to the House of Representatives
with each state-delegation having one vote only.
And the power to elect the Vice President went to the U.S. Senate
where each sitting Senator had one vote for VP.




2. MODIFICATIONS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

    This original system for selecting the President and Vice President
has been modified over the years.
Now every four years, we have a Presidential election,
in which we are actually voting for Electors.
By the popular vote 'for' President and Vice President,
each state empowers one slate of Electors.
These unknown Electors were named in advance by each state party.
Whichever slate wins the most votes in that state,
that winning party sends its set of Electors to the state capital,
where they officially vote for President and Vice President.

    In contrast to the original concept for the College of Electors,
these Electors are almost never known to the voters.
And they are not supposed to use their own thinking and deliberation
for selecting the next President and Vice President.
Rather, they are merely place-holders for the votes of the people.
Whichever Presidential ticket wins the most votes in that state
sends that party's set of Electors to the state capital.
These Electors are supposed to vote automatically
for their party's candidates for President and Vice President.

    The winning slate takes ALL of the Electoral Votes of each state.
Thus, even if the popular votes of a state were almost evenly divided,
whichever ticket has the largest number of popular votes in that state
gets ALL of the Electoral Votes from that state.

    This practice of assigning ALL the Electoral Votes to the winning slate
is NOT part of the U.S. Constitution.
Winner-takes-all is a later development adopted by the states.

    Two small states
Maine and Nebraskahave modified
their system for allocating Electoral Votes.
In those states, the votes are counted by Congressional District.
The winning slate in each Congressional District gets one Electoral Vote. 
Plus, the winning slate for the whole state
gets two additional Electoral Votes.
This district system is explained more fully here:
"Revive the Electoral College:
One Presidential Elector
for Each Congressional District"





3. A DIRECT POPULAR VOTE OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE.

    A much simpler system would be a popular vote of all voters in America:
Whichever Presidential ticket gets the most votes nationwide is the winner.

    But as the world becomes more connected electronically,
it is quite possible for a television celebrity to become very popular
without having the slightest ability to run a government.
Being well-known might replace being well-qualified.

    Other countries have experienced this same problem.
Even where most of the people are extremely poor,
they still do have access to television and other mass media.
When national leaders are selected by direct popular vote,
the person with the highest name-recognition might become president.




4. NATIONAL POLITICAL CONVENTIONS
            TO SELECT CANDIDATES.


    Thru most of the history of Presidential elections,
the political parties have held national conventions
for the purpose of selecting their best candidates for President and VP.
Several candidates were considered by each convention.
The party delegates voted (often several times)
until they had selected that party's candidate for President.
That Presidential candidate usually selected a running-mate
to be the Vice Presidential candidate on the same slate or ticket.
The national convention affirmed this VP candidate.

    In the early days of national political conventions,
many candidates were considered by each party.
The delegates to these political conventions
discussed the qualifications of each candidate.
And almost without exception, the persons they selected
to be their candidates for President and Vice President
did have years of political experience at some level of public office.

    But by the 21st century, the delegates to the national conventions
became primarily place-holders for political candidates
who had been selected by caucuses and/or primaries in the various states.
Like the members of the College of Electors,
they were not supposed to vote their own convictions and preferences.
Rather, they became delegates because they were 'pledged'
to particular candidates even before the national convention began.

    Under this practice, the national conventions were not really needed:
The number of delegates for each candidate were known in advance.
They could have stayed home and submitted their ballots by mail
or by some electronic method.
The mass news media had already reported
how many delegates were committed to each candidate.

    These selected delegates to the national political convention
were not supposed to exercise any judgment or evaluation.
They were just ways of transmitting the primary votes of their states
(or the votes in their party caucuses) to the national level of their party.
They attend their national convention as place-holders
rather than as thoughtful evaluators of the candidates
for President and Vice President.




5. SHOULD OFFICE-HOLDERS
            HAVE A GREATER ROLE IN SELECTING
            CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT?


    Because of the ways our democracy has already developed,
there seems to be little chance of returning to the original concept
of a College of wise Electors selecting the next President.

    But the political parties might insert careful consideration
into the process of selecting their candidates for President and VP.

    This layer of insulation from the popularity contest
might consist of elected representatives of the people
having a greater role in selecting candidates.

    Recently these have been called "super-delegates".
They hold seats in the national convention
by virtue of having been selected (perhaps years earlier)
by the voters who originally put them into office.

    The special delegates might be former Presidents and Vice Presidents.
They could be men and women elected to the U.S. Senate.
Or they could be members of the U.S. House of Representatives
who were selected by the people in their Congressional Districts.
Delegates by virtue of their offices could also be state officials,
such as elected governors or elected members of the state legislatures.

    All people who have some years of experience in government
know how to make compromises and achieve results.
Not only do they have well-known views on public issues,
but they have some experience with the workings of government.
They know what to look for in a good candidate for President.

    When there are not enough elected public officials from a particular party,
that party could use a caucus system or some other method
for selecting individuals who have been active in party politics in their state.

    The basic reason for using elected public officials and party leaders
to select the nominee of their party
is to insert some common political sense into the process.
People who have already devoted some years of their lives to government
will not be inclined to select movie stars as their candidates for President.
No matter how well-known someone might be or how popular with the people,
office-holding delegates with day-to-day experience in government
will not be inclined to support candidates
merely because they have a large public following.

    Each party will have to use its own process for making this decision:
How many delegates to the national convention for our party
should be established officer-holders who were elected by the people?
And how many should be established party officials
deeply familiar with how government works?

    Office-holding delegates would be selected by their parties
some months or years before the Presidential campaign begins.
This would also insulate them to some degree
from the newest passions of the immediate Presidential campaign.
And because they have experience in government,
they might be inclined to select a candidate from their own ranks.
This would have some similarities with the parliamentary system,
in which the prime minister is chosen by the members of parliament
from among their own members.
People who might serve in the highest elected office
should have at least a few years of experience in lower offices.
How many years of their careers
have been devoted to pulling the levers of government?

    And if the office-holding delegates are elected public officials,
some voters of other parties have also voted for them.
This would be an indirect way for alternative political thinking
to have some influence on what might otherwise be pure partisanship.
Most office-holding delegates were elected to their offices
with some votes from members of other parties.
This means that they can take opposing views into account.

    When it is known in advance within each political party
exactly which elected public officials will also be
office-holding delegates to the national convention of their party,
this fact might be taken into account by the voters.
When we elect a governor from our political party,
this person will also automatically be an office-holding delegate
to the national political convention of our party
that takes place while this governor is still in office.

    This public official might have been first elected to office
several years before a particular Presidential campaign begins.
And if this elected official has been re-elected several times,
this proves that he or she knows
the operation of government from the inside.

    Office-holding delegates would not be pledged to any candidate.
Of course, when the campaign moves into action,
they will know who the main candidates for President are.
But  because office-holding delegates are selected for their expertise
rather than their commitment to any particular candidate,
they can help their party to select the very best candidate.
Office-holding delegates would be expected to exercise
careful evaluation
rather than voting automatically
for a candidate favored in a primary or caucus in their state.

    There might also be room for new delegates
to be selected by some reasonable process in the year of the election.
But if more than half of the delegates
have some political and/or governmental experience,
then that national political convention will be inclined
to select their candidates based on qualifications and experience
rather than merely because the candidates are so popular or well-known
that they will get lots of votes in the general election.

    What about a 50/50 split between office-holding delegates
and delegates selected by primary elections and caucus methods?
This will tend to make the national political conventions
real deliberative gatherings of that party
for the purpose of selecting their best candidate
rather than just a rubber stamp for the primary and caucus system.

    If elected officials are also going to become office-holding delegates,
then the voters should consider who should be their delegates
when deciding which persons to put into office.
If most of the office-holding delegates have been elected by the people,
then this should answer the worry
that ex-officio delegates are out of touch with the people.
They were elected by the people (and frequently re-elected).

A former President has the confidence of many people in the party.
And a person who has held the highest office in the land
will not support a nominee who has no experience in government.
The Oval Office is not the place for on-the-job training.

Senators, Representatives, & Governors still in office
know that they will have to interact with the new President.
And these office-holding delegates
will also be aware of everything known by the other delegates.
And if asked by the news media,
they would certainly be free to disclose which candidates they favor.




6. COMPETENCE IS BETTER THAN POPULARITY.


    The founding fathers who wrote our Constitution
wisely decided AGAINST the direct popular election of the President.
In those days there were only about one million voters in the USA.
But they knew that irrelevant passions might sway a popular vote.
So they wanted responsible people to select the President and VP.

    Because we believe in the will of the people,
we will probably not return to an appointed College of Electors.
But we can certainly fix the process
by which each political party selects its candidates.
If each political party selects well-qualified candidates,
then our country will have a good President
no matter how the votes are accumulated
or who wins the election.



Created November 10, 2016; Revised 11-28-2016; 12-9-2016;
1-21-2017; 2-15-2017; 4-21-2017; 12-28-2017;
1-11-2018; r 2-22-2018; 4-4-2019;



AUTHOR: 

    James Park is an independent thinker,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
He votes in every election
and wants his vote to be as meaningful as possible.
Much more will be learned about him on his personal website,
which is the last link below.

    Here are four other ways to improve our American government:

Revive the Electoral College:
One Presidential Elector for each Congressional District


Sex-Balanced Senate

The Social Security Tax:
Reforming the Most Unfair Federal Tax


Million Dollar Cap:
No One Should Get More than One Million Dollars

Per Year from the U.S. Taxpayers


   
These and a few others
have now been gathered into a small book called:

Fixing America.
Reviving the Electoral College is Chapter 3.
Giving office-holders more power in selecting nominees
for President and Vice President is Chapter 4.





Go to the beginning of this website
James Leonard Park—Free Library