1. ASHFORD POL 201 Week 3 DQ 2
Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College
PLEASE DOWNLOAD HERE
Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College. Americans expect their
presidents to get things done, to solve problems, to govern effectively, and to be
strong leaders. The framers of the Constitution did not envision such presidential
leadership. A scholar of the presidency points out that Article II of the Constitution
gives the president scant formal power to influence congressional policy-making
(Simon, n.d.). He also notes that the framers intentionally designed a process for
selecting presidents that would minimize their political power – the Electoral
College. They hoped this institution would insulate the chief executive from the
public because they feared the power of presidents who might be elected by the
people. Therefore, the Constitution provides that "Each State shall appoint, in
such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal
to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress..." Having state legislatures "appoint" the Electors who
select the chief executive would minimize the president's capacity to lead on the
basis of his popular support. In a very real sense, the president would not be
accountable to the people but rather to the state legislatures who appoint
Electors. This procedure was also seen as a way to encourage the selection of
statesmen with "characters preeminent for ability and virtue” rather than mere
politicians with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” (Hamilton,
1788).
The practice of state legislatures appointing Electors continued for many years.
Most American history texts do not report national presidential vote totals before
1824 because 25% of the states were still not holding presidential elections by
that year. Even as late as 1876 the state of Colorado's legislature appointed
Electors. As states moved away from legislative appointment to the current
system of allowing a state's Electors to be chosen by a winner-take-all popular
vote, the primary rationale for the Electoral College was forgotten in history. At
the same time, public expectations of strong presidential leadership were rising.
This creates a problem well illustrated by the disputed election of 2000. George
W. Bush was elected president with 271 electoral votes to Al Gore's 266 electoral
votes. However, Gore amassed 543,895 popular votes more than Bush. Also,
because some disputed votes in Florida made unclear which candidate should
receive the state's electoral votes, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a full
recount of the Florida vote. But the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and stopped

2. the recount, thereby in effect awarding Florida's electoral votes to Bush. While
arguments continue to this day about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's
intervention, the 2000 election illustrates a glaring weakness of the Electoral
College system – selecting a president whose authority may be diminished by the
dubious circumstances of his or her election. The election of 2000 also has fueled
a long ongoing debate about whether the Electoral College should be abandoned
in favor of method which insures that the candidate elected has the most popular
votes. Would this outcome be more consistent with contemporary public
expectations about the president's role as a national leader who can get things
done?
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, briefly summarize how the Electoral
College works. Explain some of the main pros and cons in the debate about
whether to keep or abolish the current Electoral College process. Also explain
one proposal to change how the system works without formally abolishing it.
Evaluate the various arguments and the proposal. Include at least two
perspectives in your assessment:
a. Your judgment about the relevance of the Electoral College's underlying
rationale to contemporary America.
b. Your judgment about its impact on presidential leadership capacity.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your
position with APA citations totwo or more different resources required for this
discussion.
By Day 7 respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer
responses each must be at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical
thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your peer's post while explaining why
your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with your peer's
while explaining or justifying your position).
References:
Hamilton, A. (1788). The Federalist Papers, Number 68.
Simon, D. (n.d.). Public expectations of the president. Retrieved from
faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/AMPres07Up/SimonExpectations.doc