The confusion and anxiety surrounding counting the votes cast in last week’s US presidential election, with different US states using different rules and procedures, make it natural to wonder: Would it not have been better to let Washington oversee the process?
The framers of the US Constitution did not think so, for reasons of principle. Some of the foundations of their thinking can be found in the Federalist Papers, written mostly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (with a few by John Jay), among the greatest works in all of political science and the most important contemporaneous explanation of the framers’ thinking.
Federalist No. 51, written by Madison, might be the best of the 86 essays, and it speaks, with great specificity, to the situation following the election.
The least famous passage in that essay, and the most relevant today, is about one thing: federalism. It tells us a lot about how to think about vote-counting — and the role of the US president and Congress in that process.
The essay is mostly a celebration of the system of checks and balances.
“Dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions,” Madison wrote.
The system of separated powers — Congress, the president, the judiciary — provides some of those precautions. However, that was not nearly enough. Madison drew attention to “considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America.”
Ours is a “compound republic,” in the sense that “the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments,” he wrote.
There is the national government and then there are the states, and this division creates essential security for “the rights of the people,” Madison wrote.
In important cases, “the different governments will control each other,” he wrote.
These are abstract ideas, but they bear directly on presidential elections and help explain the constitutional provisions that govern them.
Under Article 2 of the constitution, the states are plainly in charge. A central goal was to ensure the integrity of the electoral process, which would be badly endangered if a sitting president, or his congressional allies, could engage in self-dealing.
The 12th Amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1804, says more about the process, but similarly ensures that the fundamental questions would be settled by state officials and state law.
Madison had this to say in Federalist No. 10: “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”
Under the constitution, the president has no power at all over the electoral process. The role of Congress is narrowly circumscribed.
It is true that the constitution leaves many open questions. To answer them, much of the governing law is now provided by the US Electoral Count Act of 1887, which maintains continuity with the idea of a “compound republic,” and whose principal goal was again to reduce the role of national authorities.
As one member of Congress said during the legislative debates: “The political conscience is a flexible and elastic rule of action that readily yields to the slightest pressure of party exigencies.”
He added that when “the great office of president is at stake… it would be expecting too much of human nature, under the tyranny of party, to omit any opportunity to accomplish its ends, more especially under that loose code of morals which teaches that all is fair in politics, as in war or in love.”
This is not the place to describe the technicalities of that 19th-century election law, which might or might not prove to be relevant to this year’s presidential contest. The larger point is that under the act, state law is what governs, whether it is Nevada’s, Arizona’s, Pennsylvania’s or Georgia’s.
Congress has the authority to intervene only under narrowly defined circumstances (as, for example, when a state’s electors vote for someone who is too young to be eligible for the presidency).
However, the president’s own power is weaker. He has none at all. (Pause over that, if you would.) The reason is again clear: He cannot be allowed to pick his successor — and if his own job is at stake, he cannot be trusted at all.
People do not march under banners these days that cry out: “Compound republic!”
However, for national elections, the allocation of authority to state officials is a crucial safeguard against bias, self-dealing and corruption.
We are seeing that now. It is hardly perfect, but it is creating, in real time, some security for “the rights of the people.”
Cass Sunstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and author. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and