There is a serious debate taking place about the health, stability, and relevance of the constitutional order. As I have written elsewhere, there is a tendency to conflate the underlying features of the Constitution with the political system that overlays it — to the detriment of understanding what is still working relatively well in the case of the former. A good example of this phenomenon is the presidential selection system.

To start with something obvious but nevertheless overlooked,
consider the four-year term of the presidency, which is longer than any state
governor’s term in 1787. The Constitution’s architects thought that four years
was long enough for the country to properly assess the office-holder’s competence.
Shorter, and a president’s policies might not have had time to show their
benefits; longer, and the country might be stuck, and harmed, with executive
incompetency. In the country’s most recent presidential election, a sufficient
number of independents and regular Republican voters came to the conclusion
that they had seen enough of Donald Trump as president to vote for Joe Biden
and his promise to return to some form of governing normalcy.

But, as has been widely noted, a significant number of those
voting for Biden also voted Republican for state and congressional offices. The
possibility of doing so, of course, is baked into the Constitution. Although
the elections might be held on the same day, the Constitution’s drafters did
not intend to make the first Tuesday in November a national plebiscite. The
Framers quite consciously sought to give electoral voice to the wide variety of
interests and opinions that would make up this geographically extensive
republic. It would be up to the political institutions — Congress and the
presidency — to shape, if possible, those distinct voices into a coherent
policies.

While this system can make coherent policy-making more
difficult, it also more accurately reflects the state of division in our
extended republic. There is no national consensus about much of the sweeping
agenda being put forward by the administration and Democrat leadership in the
House. Although Democrats hold the White House and Congress, the distinct
electoral processes for the president and members of Congress prevent this from
amounting to total control. Although majoritarian advocates like to see popular
mandates in every election, true popular mandates for presidents are rare.
Accordingly, a president’s real task, more often than not, is to reflect on
what is possible in building a broader national consensus on policies. There’s
nothing easy about doing so, but the presidency’s own national election, which
is built state by state, makes the office uniquely suited to take on this task,
which, if successful, can obviate partisan battle lines and deepening
polarization. The problem here is not the Constitution so much as presidents
often misreading the true basis of their own support and, in turn, Congress
largely abandoning many of the tools, like the committee system, that made greater
deliberation and consensual policymaking possible.

It’s also of special relevance to current disputes to remember
that one of the arguments made by those supporting the new constitution’s
ratification in 1787–88 was the fact that the Electoral College system was specifically
constructed to have electors meet and vote in their respective states, with the
states certifying the count. They argued that fragmenting the process would
make it more difficult for domestic factions to collude in the selection
process — avoiding precisely the kind of danger posed by those who wanted to
use the vice president and Congress to overturn the election on January 6.

This is not to say that the presidential selection system is in good working order. But many of the current problems are self-inflicted. Presidential campaigns are too long and too expensive and, hence, too disruptive of what should be the ongoing business of sound government. And, of course, the political parties have lost virtually all control over who runs and who is selected to be their party’s candidate. It’s now a roll of the die every four years as to who gets selected. The length, expense, and structure of these elections are the product of federal law and party rules, not the Constitution. Given the importance of the presidency in the constitutional system, it would be a good thing if the parties would focus a little less on how democratic and open their process is and more on the quality of the candidate that is produced by that process. So, for the time being, it’s only two cheers for the current selection system.

The post Two cheers for the presidential selection system appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.