In 1787 the Framers, in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the principles of both Federalists and

(a) 6/b (4) | (a) 6/b (6) Candidate a: 18

200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities of the people. The Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function since 1787, the year of its formulation. This in itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the College has remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be relevant, but the College as this safeguard has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to undemocratic election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be addressed or are they acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this question we must first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could have occurred as a result of the flaws Electoral College.

Congressional selection of the President can lead to democratic compromise. This would seem an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to distance ourselves from such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following reveals how close to home the flaws 200-year-old institution can hit. In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of presidential selections that emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr incident. The 1968 election race was extremely close. Richard Nixon barley received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Nixon failed to get a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The candidates in the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace respectively. Had Nixon failed to win a majority Wallace would have been in a position to control who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz, 65). Though he could not have won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing votes to give Nixon a majority, or give Humphrey enough to prevent Nixon from getting a majority (Bailey & Shafritz, 65). In the latter instance the issue would have, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either instance Wallace would have had a great deal to gain, and the temptation to wheel and deal (at the compromise of democracy) would have been great indeed. It is possible Wallace could have used his influence with Southern House members to get Humphrey elected. In the process he would have likely `garnered great political clout for himself. Wallace could have bargained with Nixon for an administration position in Nixon's cabinet in return for Wallace's electoral votes. The possible scenarios are endless, and for the most part irrelevant. What is relevant is that the processes of the Electoral College again paved a path for demo

Some topics in this essay:
Electoral College, Bailey Shafritz, Electoral Votes, House Humphrey, House Representatives, Hamilton Federalists, Richard Nixon, Washington DC, House Representative, President Vice-President, electoral college, electoral votes, bailey shafritz, majority electoral votes, majority electoral, shafritz 61, bailey shafritz 61, candidate receives, candidate receives majority, popular votes, receives electoral, 1800 elections, democratic compromise, receives electoral votes, question remains flaws,